I don't think that he's necessarily trying to shut down this complaint. What he IS trying to do is make sure that the board doesn't look at this document and treat it like an official engineering document -- signed off by a professional engineer. The way in which it is written/presented has a "professional engineering" feel -- but it isn't a professional document and so it shouldn't have the same "sway" a professional document would.
If I read a report written by a doctor on medical research -- it's probably trustworthy. If I read a report written by Joe Nurse that "looks" like a professional medical report -- I might make a mistake and be misled.
If that sidebar to the left is going to stay... it needs some contrast compared with the body. It's especially awkward on the home page. The font size is almost the same, there's a whole lot of white space, etc. When I look at it the sidebar and the body are just kind of running together, there's nothing to set it apart. Change the fonts or add a thin border; do SOMETHING to separate it and make it clear that it's a side bar.
I don't believe Christianity is tainted, but people sure are tainted. You will not find "good Christians in this world", because they don't exist. That's the point of it -- no one is without sin (Romans 3:23) and we deserve judgement from a perfect just God, but Jesus was sent to live a perfect life and die to bear that burden as our substitute (Romans 6:23). Christianity is about living in belief of that.
If you want to make claims against the oppression of Christianity, you have to make claims against Jesus (who arguably was the greatest liberator known -- look at the way he treats children, women, and Gentiles amongst a Jewish culture which had no value for those people)... Christianity is about Jesus, not about the Christians. People are destined to screw up.
Actually, Office 2010 doesn't support Strict, only Transitional. The next release of Office will support both. The problem is, I doubt anything else supports Transitional other than office. See this blog that was posted on MSDN.
In my town the Fire Department routinely comes around and flushes/tests the hydrants. So... seems like there's some maintenance going on there. I don't see the police testing the roadways.
According to the policy PDF, the only limitation is that the office application used supports ECMA-376. It doesn't state whether it needs to be ECMA-376 Strict or Transitional conformance.
Obviously there will be a balance between security and usability. There's always going to be the ability to crack the system if you really try hard enough. For most enterprises, securing confidential information is just going to be the task of employees being responsible with their data, rather than ultra-paranoid IT enforcements. If you are handling data that is that sensitive, your computer should be on ultimate lockdown and probably just not leave the office at all.
Really seemed to me that half of the article's argument for Israeli and American involvement in this was that they are happy to announce Iran is having setbacks due to the worm. And... why would they not be no matter who was involved? That's not convincing evidence.
I see everyone on here commenting about how this would be a nightmare for IT to manage from a security standpoint. I don't really think so. The only area that would suffer is hardware-related support since you're now dealing with a bunch of different computers from all different vendors. So you wouldn't be able to take your broken computer in and get a quick replacement part from your IT folks on site, and that might be OK with a lot of folks, especially at tech-oriented companies.
I work at a large enterprise, and we can install whatever we want on our work laptop to begin with. So me being aloud to install whatever I want is already a "security issue". It's probably like that at a lot of larger tech-based enterprises. The difference is that my IT computer is also running a lot of IT-enforced software that's making sure I keep my system up-to-date and haven't installed anything "bad".
If you don't care about being able to provide IT support for users hardware, you could have employees keep their own computers and just install all the IT-required OS, the BS apps that monitor your computer and push out software updates, the corporate anti-virus, etc. If the computer doesn't meet the IT software standards, then deny it access to the network. There's security solutions out there that can check the integrity of your computer and deny network access if its not up to snuff (google Network Access Control).
So, kind of a useless article from a technology POV since they are keeping it "under wraps". Anyone out there have any ideas or guesses as to what's accomplishing the "air purification"?
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
Honestly why was the parent modded a troll? You don't mean to tell me that folks on Slashdot are censoring any negative information related to Assange, do you?
You have a point, but where there is a demand there are people who are willing to supply. I'm pretty convinced that the opportunity to distribute CP is a fuel to add to the fire. If CP was no longer in demand the abuse related to it would certainly decrease, though you are right in saying it is not the root of the problem.
Astronomers have been looking for alien worlds for more than 15 years, and now you too can join the search.
Yes, and I also could have joined a world-wide search for extra-terrestial life back in 1999 when SETI@Home was launched... (I realize the goal and approach of this planet project is different)
Astronomers are using computers to crunch the data from the Kepler probe and look for planet candidates. "But computers are only good at finding what they've been taught to look for, whereas the human brain has the uncanny ability to recognize patterns and immediately pick out what is strange or unique, far beyond what we can teach machines to do," Meg Schwamb, another Yale astronomer and Planet Hunters co-founder, said in today's news release.
EG-- Think of what would happen if you used ComCast's various local networks (the neighborhood branch networks that the cable modems are attached to), and all the VoIP connections that are being shuttled through them, and subtly alter their delivery routes a few hops at a time using the distributed arp poisoning approach above. By the time you get it over comcast's backbone connection, you would be directing a huge bitstream of "Legitimate", "high priority" packets. At the same time, you would be doing the same thing with ATT, TimeWarner Cable, etc... The end goal is to get all of those rivers of traffic to flood into the final network segment via its many backbone connections, fully saturating the segment, and overloading the routers at the destination.
1) It's highly unlikely you're going to have drones on continuous subnets, at least continuous enough to hit a target somewhere across a few networks. Outside of the network edge, where are you going to have an infected node? Once you're outside of the cable modem/VoIP access switches it'll be network aggregation. Good luck having an infected device connected on these switch-router or router-to-router network segments, which are probably all subnetted to allow only a few IP hosts anyways (which are other switches/routers).
2) I would assume ISPs are using static ARP entries in that aggregation layer. But, you never know.
3) At the access layer, many switches are configured to only allow 1 or 2 MAC addresses in a time period. If you suddenly change and dump a new MAC out, your port can be auto-disabled. (see port security)
4) Switches can be configured to monitor the DHCP leases granted by the network's trusted DHCP servers. If your port has an ARP packet come in with a source IP that was not leased out in its ARP messages, the packet is dropped. (see DHCP snooping)
Dropped calls of 0.1%? What is that statistic for, where AT&T service is available? The problem is how "gappy" AT&T's coverage is. Within the same town I often find myself going in and out of 3G, or in and out of roaming. That's where my calls of course drop;)
Firewalls can optionally drop packets from a source IP without really even processing the packet or sending back any kind of "service unavailable/connection refused" reply -- saves on CPU consumption there.
A little more math, an you realize that the rate of exposure is 90 times faster in the machine.
90 times faster exposure of only 0.0027% of your body means that the "only three minutes" argument is true, but misleading. Such things can only happen in a culture where most people are mathematically illiterate.
To make a mathematical analogy. Assume the exposure in the air is like having a match light each second. You feel the heat of one match for 180 seconds. Then standing in such a machine is like being exposed to 36841 matches being lit 90 time a second for 2 seconds. That's 3315690 matches per second for 2 seconds. It's a 3 million plus fold increase in exposure rate.
But I don't think exposure rate matters in this case. It seems that damage due to radiation is caused by the amount of radiation absorbed, not the rate of absorption. So while your match analogy is interesting and a bit scary to think about, I don't think you can use this to say that there's more damage being done to your body over this 2 second period compared with the 3 minute period. In both cases, your body has absorbed the same amount of radiation and the same amount of tissue damage has occurred.
The only argument I could see is that perhaps your body has more time to repair damaged tissue in that 3 minute period, whereas in the "onslaught" brought on during the 2 second period it does not. But I'm not sure if 3 minutes would allow for much to happen as far as tissue repair goes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that he's necessarily trying to shut down this complaint. What he IS trying to do is make sure that the board doesn't look at this document and treat it like an official engineering document -- signed off by a professional engineer. The way in which it is written/presented has a "professional engineering" feel -- but it isn't a professional document and so it shouldn't have the same "sway" a professional document would.
If I read a report written by a doctor on medical research -- it's probably trustworthy. If I read a report written by Joe Nurse that "looks" like a professional medical report -- I might make a mistake and be misled.
These one-liner summaries seem to be tickling CmdrTaco's fancy today ...
If that sidebar to the left is going to stay ... it needs some contrast compared with the body. It's especially awkward on the home page. The font size is almost the same, there's a whole lot of white space, etc. When I look at it the sidebar and the body are just kind of running together, there's nothing to set it apart. Change the fonts or add a thin border; do SOMETHING to separate it and make it clear that it's a side bar.
I don't believe Christianity is tainted, but people sure are tainted. You will not find "good Christians in this world", because they don't exist. That's the point of it -- no one is without sin (Romans 3:23) and we deserve judgement from a perfect just God, but Jesus was sent to live a perfect life and die to bear that burden as our substitute (Romans 6:23). Christianity is about living in belief of that.
If you want to make claims against the oppression of Christianity, you have to make claims against Jesus (who arguably was the greatest liberator known -- look at the way he treats children, women, and Gentiles amongst a Jewish culture which had no value for those people)... Christianity is about Jesus, not about the Christians. People are destined to screw up.
Actually, Office 2010 doesn't support Strict, only Transitional. The next release of Office will support both. The problem is, I doubt anything else supports Transitional other than office. See this blog that was posted on MSDN.
Even that I am a programmer, I do not know how to fix it.
Dude why not? RTFM!
In my town the Fire Department routinely comes around and flushes/tests the hydrants. So ... seems like there's some maintenance going on there. I don't see the police testing the roadways.
According to the policy PDF, the only limitation is that the office application used supports ECMA-376. It doesn't state whether it needs to be ECMA-376 Strict or Transitional conformance.
So why couldn't someone use one of these?
Surely not. The same way that love, other emotions, and creativity must surely be based upon completely quantifiable electro-chemical behavior, right?
Gym, tan, laundry
Obviously there will be a balance between security and usability. There's always going to be the ability to crack the system if you really try hard enough. For most enterprises, securing confidential information is just going to be the task of employees being responsible with their data, rather than ultra-paranoid IT enforcements. If you are handling data that is that sensitive, your computer should be on ultimate lockdown and probably just not leave the office at all.
Really seemed to me that half of the article's argument for Israeli and American involvement in this was that they are happy to announce Iran is having setbacks due to the worm. And ... why would they not be no matter who was involved? That's not convincing evidence.
I see everyone on here commenting about how this would be a nightmare for IT to manage from a security standpoint. I don't really think so. The only area that would suffer is hardware-related support since you're now dealing with a bunch of different computers from all different vendors. So you wouldn't be able to take your broken computer in and get a quick replacement part from your IT folks on site, and that might be OK with a lot of folks, especially at tech-oriented companies.
I work at a large enterprise, and we can install whatever we want on our work laptop to begin with. So me being aloud to install whatever I want is already a "security issue". It's probably like that at a lot of larger tech-based enterprises. The difference is that my IT computer is also running a lot of IT-enforced software that's making sure I keep my system up-to-date and haven't installed anything "bad".
If you don't care about being able to provide IT support for users hardware, you could have employees keep their own computers and just install all the IT-required OS, the BS apps that monitor your computer and push out software updates, the corporate anti-virus, etc. If the computer doesn't meet the IT software standards, then deny it access to the network. There's security solutions out there that can check the integrity of your computer and deny network access if its not up to snuff (google Network Access Control).
So, kind of a useless article from a technology POV since they are keeping it "under wraps". Anyone out there have any ideas or guesses as to what's accomplishing the "air purification"?
Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.
Honestly why was the parent modded a troll? You don't mean to tell me that folks on Slashdot are censoring any negative information related to Assange, do you?
Damn, you got me!
You have a point, but where there is a demand there are people who are willing to supply. I'm pretty convinced that the opportunity to distribute CP is a fuel to add to the fire. If CP was no longer in demand the abuse related to it would certainly decrease, though you are right in saying it is not the root of the problem.
The solution:
1. Buy CPU
2. Wrap computer case in aluminum foil to block ze 3G's.
3. Victory
Astronomers have been looking for alien worlds for more than 15 years, and now you too can join the search.
Yes, and I also could have joined a world-wide search for extra-terrestial life back in 1999 when SETI@Home was launched... (I realize the goal and approach of this planet project is different)
Astronomers are using computers to crunch the data from the Kepler probe and look for planet candidates. "But computers are only good at finding what they've been taught to look for, whereas the human brain has the uncanny ability to recognize patterns and immediately pick out what is strange or unique, far beyond what we can teach machines to do," Meg Schwamb, another Yale astronomer and Planet Hunters co-founder, said in today's news release.
From the article
There's some reasons this won't work.
EG-- Think of what would happen if you used ComCast's various local networks (the neighborhood branch networks that the cable modems are attached to), and all the VoIP connections that are being shuttled through them, and subtly alter their delivery routes a few hops at a time using the distributed arp poisoning approach above. By the time you get it over comcast's backbone connection, you would be directing a huge bitstream of "Legitimate", "high priority" packets. At the same time, you would be doing the same thing with ATT, TimeWarner Cable, etc... The end goal is to get all of those rivers of traffic to flood into the final network segment via its many backbone connections, fully saturating the segment, and overloading the routers at the destination.
1) It's highly unlikely you're going to have drones on continuous subnets, at least continuous enough to hit a target somewhere across a few networks. Outside of the network edge, where are you going to have an infected node? Once you're outside of the cable modem/VoIP access switches it'll be network aggregation. Good luck having an infected device connected on these switch-router or router-to-router network segments, which are probably all subnetted to allow only a few IP hosts anyways (which are other switches/routers).
2) I would assume ISPs are using static ARP entries in that aggregation layer. But, you never know.
3) At the access layer, many switches are configured to only allow 1 or 2 MAC addresses in a time period. If you suddenly change and dump a new MAC out, your port can be auto-disabled. (see port security)
4) Switches can be configured to monitor the DHCP leases granted by the network's trusted DHCP servers. If your port has an ARP packet come in with a source IP that was not leased out in its ARP messages, the packet is dropped. (see DHCP snooping)
From the article: "TMV becomes inert during the manufacturing process; the resulting batteries do not transmit the virus"
Dropped calls of 0.1%? What is that statistic for, where AT&T service is available? The problem is how "gappy" AT&T's coverage is. Within the same town I often find myself going in and out of 3G, or in and out of roaming. That's where my calls of course drop ;)
Firewalls can optionally drop packets from a source IP without really even processing the packet or sending back any kind of "service unavailable/connection refused" reply -- saves on CPU consumption there.
A little more math, an you realize that the rate of exposure is 90 times faster in the machine.
90 times faster exposure of only 0.0027% of your body means that the "only three minutes" argument is true, but misleading. Such things can only happen in a culture where most people are mathematically illiterate.
To make a mathematical analogy. Assume the exposure in the air is like having a match light each second. You feel the heat of one match for 180 seconds. Then standing in such a machine is like being exposed to 36841 matches being lit 90 time a second for 2 seconds. That's 3315690 matches per second for 2 seconds. It's a 3 million plus fold increase in exposure rate.
But I don't think exposure rate matters in this case. It seems that damage due to radiation is caused by the amount of radiation absorbed, not the rate of absorption. So while your match analogy is interesting and a bit scary to think about, I don't think you can use this to say that there's more damage being done to your body over this 2 second period compared with the 3 minute period. In both cases, your body has absorbed the same amount of radiation and the same amount of tissue damage has occurred.
The only argument I could see is that perhaps your body has more time to repair damaged tissue in that 3 minute period, whereas in the "onslaught" brought on during the 2 second period it does not. But I'm not sure if 3 minutes would allow for much to happen as far as tissue repair goes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.