In many cases, there is only one correct way to do a thing. This is similar to Google's argument regarding Java APIs: if you want to write compatible code, there is only a single way it can be done. It isn't creativity, it's plain mathematical necessity. Many of the people didn't write the language interpreter they are providing an answer about, so they have no rights to claim in answering trivial syntax questions (no more than a person can claim Rights to a section of Harry Potter because they discussed it on a forum). If the answer involved writing a complex algorithm, then yes, an argument can be made for attribution. I think common sense is sufficient to tell the difference.
They weren't caught out. Most likely the exploit is already known in several countries and the risk of leaving the exploit in place outweighs operational benefit. If they were actually caught out you wouldn't hear anything because Fortinet would be under NSL.
The fact that DoD (who is just one government among many) spent well over 9 figures on exploits means that government surveillance actually is the simplest explanation these days.
Law enforcement personnel wear gloves, in order to avoid stuff like disease transmission and simply due to weather. Thats the reason some pistols and rifles are popular with LEs due to having more space around the trigger for gloved hands.
Having to take your gloves off in order to use a service weapon makes that weapon pretty much useless in a crisis. The usual way police protect their weapon is through the use of special locking holsters. If there was a magical way to make sure the weapon couldn't be used by an assailant, I'm sure police would go for that, but fingerprint scanners are a dumb idea.
Essentially what is happening is that the internet is being militarized and turned into another front with which to wage warfare against other countries. This isn't just a US phenomenon; it is happening in Europe and Asia as well. There's really a lot more to what is going on than simple surveillance of citizens. The capability that allows you to read existing communications is roughly the same capability that allows you to create new communications in place of existing ones. The ability to read emails written by you (without your knowledge) is the same as the ability to create emails written by you, without your knowledge. When you wrap your brain around the kind of havoc that can cause, you will understand what this is really about. When DoD rattled on about cyberwarfare, this is pretty much what they're talking about. Hacking your washing machine so that it tries to kill you when you unload the dishes. Get comfortable, because the mandatory backdoors in products legislation is a first shot in the next global war.
They only asked one question, and it was asked in as vague a manner as humanly possible. It's hardly surprising they got almost a 50/50 split. I doubt the survey takers even understood the question in many cases.
I read their study methodology. A couple of things:
They interviewed about 1000 people, which is supposed to be statistically representative of roughly 250 million people.
Of the people they requested to complete the survey, roughly 2/3rd's of them did it via the web, which would have been by far the quickest way to do a survey, even with a smartphone. 1/3 instead chose to complete the survey by a telephone call.
There was no information regarding whether there was a correlation between people who were okay with computer surveillance and people who don't use a computer. Given the way the study was conducted, it is reasonable to assume a number of people who responded were not comfortable using a computer to do the survey.
They broke their respondents into two age groups, one 18-30 and another 30-anything else, and then averaged positive opinions across the entire age range. So, we don't know if people age 60+ had a different opinion on the matter. We are left to infer that they don't.
They only selected households with at least 2 adults, so single adults that weren't cohabiting weren't consulted.
The question, as framed, asked about "government analysis of internet activities and communications", which is more vague and has less emotional content than "surveillance". Given that their admitted margin of sampling error is 4% (not even taking into account subgroups, which is pretty much the point of the article), differences in wording becomes relevant.
The only thing I saw worth noting in the article is that Americans find terrorists to be scary.
Tech industry in slump because tech startups discovered everything they planned to design or build in 2016 is now illegal. However, rental properties, mortgage backed securities, and marijuana farming all looking promising in the coming year.
FAA rules apply to any unmanned aerial vehicle, regardless of whether it is fly by wire. So yes, model aircraft are included, unless they have a specific legal exemption.
Politicians (I'm assuming you're talking about US legislators here) don't have time to do _anything_ but fundraise. That consumes their entire workweek. Often they can't even make it to floor votes because of it. The more influence a legislator has, the greater fundraising requirement that is placed on him or her by the party leadership. They don't understand any particular issue because they simply have more pressing stuff to do. They rarely even read bills they vote on, because they rely on contributors to tell them how to vote.
If you want to influence Washington, get together with a bunch of people and pool a big wad of cash, then contribute some of it to a candidate and wait for the next round of fundraising calls. When they call you back asking for more money, then you talk about your problem. That's how it works. Forget all of that advocacy stuff. Totally meaningless.
Actually that happened recently. Guy wanted to use drones at low altitude to deliver insulin to local hospitals in Syria. US said nope. Drone be too dangerous.
Generally, the speed of TCP ramps up to the bandwidth of the weakest link and then oscillates around that. If you get high initial speeds but it ramps down after a short period of time (5-10 seconds), then what you are seeing is traffic shaping. It is perfectly legit to do this; and there are good reasons for it, but you should be upfront with customers that it is happening, because what you are really getting is 12 mbit of committed bit rate.
Saudi Arabia beheads people almost every month. They do it for various reasons from protest against the government to witchcraft. When asked about it, the State Department calls it unfortunate, not batshit crazy evil. Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council, IIRC, their position being sponsored by the British government.
Just my opinion, but I think the reason for it has a lot to do with the fact that Google changed PageRank to increase visibility of sites that recognize mobile browsers and render accordingly. Getting that to work well is non-trivial, and WordPress makes it easy for the non-technical. For the part of the web where you just want to throw something up and have it render correctly in all browsers and don't want to spend a lot of time on it, you're going to use a CMS like WordPress. I think WordPress is probably going to end up being a vital part of web infrastructure a lot quicker than anyone really expected.
The reason VPNs are not included in the legislation is to keep the wording vague, so that its interpretation can be molded as necessary when they require new authorities.
So you're not willing to trust Snowden, nor are you willing to trust the journalists like Greenwald that he spoke to in Hong Kong, but you're willing to trust a Chinese state-run newspaper?
Slashdot Mirror
In many cases, there is only one correct way to do a thing. This is similar to Google's argument regarding Java APIs: if you want to write compatible code, there is only a single way it can be done. It isn't creativity, it's plain mathematical necessity. Many of the people didn't write the language interpreter they are providing an answer about, so they have no rights to claim in answering trivial syntax questions (no more than a person can claim Rights to a section of Harry Potter because they discussed it on a forum). If the answer involved writing a complex algorithm, then yes, an argument can be made for attribution. I think common sense is sufficient to tell the difference.
They weren't caught out. Most likely the exploit is already known in several countries and the risk of leaving the exploit in place outweighs operational benefit. If they were actually caught out you wouldn't hear anything because Fortinet would be under NSL.
Those 100Gbps ports are irrelevant if you are doing DPI. The cores can't process the rules fast enough.
The fact that DoD (who is just one government among many) spent well over 9 figures on exploits means that government surveillance actually is the simplest explanation these days.
Law enforcement personnel wear gloves, in order to avoid stuff like disease transmission and simply due to weather. Thats the reason some pistols and rifles are popular with LEs due to having more space around the trigger for gloved hands. Having to take your gloves off in order to use a service weapon makes that weapon pretty much useless in a crisis. The usual way police protect their weapon is through the use of special locking holsters. If there was a magical way to make sure the weapon couldn't be used by an assailant, I'm sure police would go for that, but fingerprint scanners are a dumb idea.
Essentially what is happening is that the internet is being militarized and turned into another front with which to wage warfare against other countries. This isn't just a US phenomenon; it is happening in Europe and Asia as well. There's really a lot more to what is going on than simple surveillance of citizens. The capability that allows you to read existing communications is roughly the same capability that allows you to create new communications in place of existing ones. The ability to read emails written by you (without your knowledge) is the same as the ability to create emails written by you, without your knowledge. When you wrap your brain around the kind of havoc that can cause, you will understand what this is really about. When DoD rattled on about cyberwarfare, this is pretty much what they're talking about. Hacking your washing machine so that it tries to kill you when you unload the dishes. Get comfortable, because the mandatory backdoors in products legislation is a first shot in the next global war.
They only asked one question, and it was asked in as vague a manner as humanly possible. It's hardly surprising they got almost a 50/50 split. I doubt the survey takers even understood the question in many cases.
The only thing I saw worth noting in the article is that Americans find terrorists to be scary.
Tech industry in slump because tech startups discovered everything they planned to design or build in 2016 is now illegal. However, rental properties, mortgage backed securities, and marijuana farming all looking promising in the coming year.
FAA rules apply to any unmanned aerial vehicle, regardless of whether it is fly by wire. So yes, model aircraft are included, unless they have a specific legal exemption.
Politicians (I'm assuming you're talking about US legislators here) don't have time to do _anything_ but fundraise. That consumes their entire workweek. Often they can't even make it to floor votes because of it. The more influence a legislator has, the greater fundraising requirement that is placed on him or her by the party leadership. They don't understand any particular issue because they simply have more pressing stuff to do. They rarely even read bills they vote on, because they rely on contributors to tell them how to vote. If you want to influence Washington, get together with a bunch of people and pool a big wad of cash, then contribute some of it to a candidate and wait for the next round of fundraising calls. When they call you back asking for more money, then you talk about your problem. That's how it works. Forget all of that advocacy stuff. Totally meaningless.
Actually that happened recently. Guy wanted to use drones at low altitude to deliver insulin to local hospitals in Syria. US said nope. Drone be too dangerous.
No, because Tea Party people often go to a church which does charity work, so they don't need a political organization doing that.
Generally, the speed of TCP ramps up to the bandwidth of the weakest link and then oscillates around that. If you get high initial speeds but it ramps down after a short period of time (5-10 seconds), then what you are seeing is traffic shaping. It is perfectly legit to do this; and there are good reasons for it, but you should be upfront with customers that it is happening, because what you are really getting is 12 mbit of committed bit rate.
Until you get a green flag from the TSA your $5 are meaningless. Plus, you need to take an aviator course and a UAS certification exam.
Not it won't be profitable, but the required recurring testing will be.
A lockbox.
What happens when genetically engineered salmon breed with normal salmon. Is that possible, and are the offspring viable, or do they die out?
Saudi Arabia beheads people almost every month. They do it for various reasons from protest against the government to witchcraft. When asked about it, the State Department calls it unfortunate, not batshit crazy evil. Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council, IIRC, their position being sponsored by the British government.
I don't know, but according to some in this thread, randomly killing people is apparently essential to modern warfare.
Just my opinion, but I think the reason for it has a lot to do with the fact that Google changed PageRank to increase visibility of sites that recognize mobile browsers and render accordingly. Getting that to work well is non-trivial, and WordPress makes it easy for the non-technical. For the part of the web where you just want to throw something up and have it render correctly in all browsers and don't want to spend a lot of time on it, you're going to use a CMS like WordPress. I think WordPress is probably going to end up being a vital part of web infrastructure a lot quicker than anyone really expected.
The reason VPNs are not included in the legislation is to keep the wording vague, so that its interpretation can be molded as necessary when they require new authorities.
It's a shame they shuttered News of the World so soon. Their time to shine has just about come.
It actually can't be the full text, because portions of the agreement are classified until several years after the agreement is ratified.
So you're not willing to trust Snowden, nor are you willing to trust the journalists like Greenwald that he spoke to in Hong Kong, but you're willing to trust a Chinese state-run newspaper?