Here's an amusing exercise you can complete if you have nothing to do; given a password space of size N, how much longer does it take to brute force it if the password is changed in some regular way? Make the usual simplifying assumptions.
Indeed. I recently left a major FS company with onerous password requirements; however, resetting it involved calling the helpdesk with name, ID number (from Outlook) and date of birth, which is easy to find from Facebook or good old fashioned social engineering (or for really senior people, from public records). For a company that won't allow scanners, that's pretty dumb.
The judge's ruling was pretty clear. You are allowed to be racist and to hate $ETHNIC_GROUP (he didn't say, but as I understand it you can also say "I hate $ETHNIC_GROUP (because x, y, and z)"). What you can't say is "Come on, everybody! Let's round up $ETHNIC_GROUP and pour petrol on them and set them on fire!". While I'm as pro-free speech as anybody, I think this does fall under the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre stool as opposed to the defend-to-the-death-your-right-to-say-it stool.
Well, there I see two interesting phrases: "such an extent as to affect prejudicially" (so presumably he can ask them to prove that his copying had an effect), and "knows or has reason to believe" - since he is in the US where such copying is entirely legal, it's quite reasonable that he could make such a mistake. Besides has the UK made an equivalent decision to Corel v. Bridgeman?
With reference to number four, yes, disclosure hurts. It does not hurt as much as a live exploit that nobody fixes because it has not been publicly disclosed. Ask anybody who had their UK bank account lightened in the 1980s. Criminals are very effective consumers of security exploits, and they are very often ahead of the game.
It *may* be possible to compile a kernel for a 286, but no distro targets it. Even Slack gave up supporting 386 several years ago when Pat accidentally discovered that 386 had been broken for several years and no-one had noticed.
Finally, someone who has *heard* of the damn thing:)
My parents bought me an Apple III for a half ton of bricks (in 1991!) convinced that "this computer thing" would be on the way out (just like guitar bands, I guess). I didn't get a hard drive; I had to boot SOS and then some mental crap called Business BASIC to be able to do anything. I had an external hard drive though, and one of my proudest moments was re-writing part of SOS to be able to treat the internal floppy and the external one as a single contiguous volume.
People like to feel they're in charge. If they've got a map, they're in charge. If you're just doing what the voice tells you, then you're not in charge.
Even assuming it is being done under the auspices of a non-friendly state (more like amused tolerance, I'd suspect), I really don't see where this qualifies or could qualify as "cyberwarfare". Warfare involves violently taking and controlling ground in order to control land, people, and resources; a properly secured server can be denied access to the net for a short length of time, but that cannot be an end in warfare itself, so the word is just stupid hype. In any case, these services are almost certainly being bought on the open market, not launched by homegrown talent - apart from anything else, what's the point of running an attack from a known NK netblock?
Can you say joe job? Also, the FTC website is down? OMG THE FTC WEBSITE IS DOWN!!!! Oh hang on, wait, ermm, world totally failing to collapse here. Can we stop calling this rubbish cyber warfare and call it a middling DoS attack, which is what it is? It's not war, it's pathetic. 4chan could probably do better than this.
I recommend Internet Central - £22.50/m for wires-only ADSL, they max out your connection to whatever it can take, no fair use policy that I've ever hit, they don't play for the IWF, and they have fantastic 24 hour phone support. Been with them three years and not a word of complaint.
Errm, his term limit expires in January. Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country's Constitution, but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress. What is clear is that in Honduras, the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances, that is not right.
Hmm. His importance in avoiding a nuclear holocaust is debatable, and given his managerial style he would not have been a good man to have in place had it kicked off. In the meantime, he was largely responsible for the Vietnam debacle, which killed ten times the number of Americans as the current "war on terror" has.
Diplomacy. It's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on. The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise, and Russia just needs to reduce its costs. And it looks very good to the masses.
Occasionally a crackhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mod will be so impressed by a funny post that they will award it karma-bearing insightful mods as opposed to karma-less funny mods. Alternatively, they're so dumb they believed it, which is not as unlikely as it used to be.
You can get away with that when you're the NSA, but I'd suggest that a typical quant is not going to play nicely with a policy like that. I would rather take the risk than scare away talent by running a shop on that basis. At the end of the day, the contents of that guy's head are worth more than the mere code he was working on.
In Scots law, at least, it would be. There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack, which resulted in manslaughter charges (although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances). Scots law on manslaughter is, I think, common law, and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law.
And what if I invent a power generation system fueled by butterflies? Cap and trade has two major advantages: (1) it reduces emissions to the target level, by definition, and (2) markets are not distorted. Your plan is just fine, right up until a major oil field is discovered and the price of oil drops by half.
Indeed. Most of the posters here don't seem to realise Wikipedia already has well defined procedures for cases of this sort (they are known as office actions, as they are taken by the foundation office) - they're more often invoked for issues like litigation and court injunctions, but this seems a perfectly legitimate use as well. As for press hypocrisy, well, yes, but I don't see what that has to do with Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an amusing exercise you can complete if you have nothing to do; given a password space of size N, how much longer does it take to brute force it if the password is changed in some regular way? Make the usual simplifying assumptions.
Indeed. I recently left a major FS company with onerous password requirements; however, resetting it involved calling the helpdesk with name, ID number (from Outlook) and date of birth, which is easy to find from Facebook or good old fashioned social engineering (or for really senior people, from public records). For a company that won't allow scanners, that's pretty dumb.
Says the one that takes a good joke too far...
On the other hand, it doesn't cost me £20 for a hit of racism...
The judge's ruling was pretty clear. You are allowed to be racist and to hate $ETHNIC_GROUP (he didn't say, but as I understand it you can also say "I hate $ETHNIC_GROUP (because x, y, and z)"). What you can't say is "Come on, everybody! Let's round up $ETHNIC_GROUP and pour petrol on them and set them on fire!". While I'm as pro-free speech as anybody, I think this does fall under the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre stool as opposed to the defend-to-the-death-your-right-to-say-it stool.
Well, there I see two interesting phrases: "such an extent as to affect prejudicially" (so presumably he can ask them to prove that his copying had an effect), and "knows or has reason to believe" - since he is in the US where such copying is entirely legal, it's quite reasonable that he could make such a mistake. Besides has the UK made an equivalent decision to Corel v. Bridgeman?
With reference to number four, yes, disclosure hurts. It does not hurt as much as a live exploit that nobody fixes because it has not been publicly disclosed. Ask anybody who had their UK bank account lightened in the 1980s. Criminals are very effective consumers of security exploits, and they are very often ahead of the game.
It *may* be possible to compile a kernel for a 286, but no distro targets it. Even Slack gave up supporting 386 several years ago when Pat accidentally discovered that 386 had been broken for several years and no-one had noticed.
My parents bought me an Apple III for a half ton of bricks (in 1991!) convinced that "this computer thing" would be on the way out (just like guitar bands, I guess). I didn't get a hard drive; I had to boot SOS and then some mental crap called Business BASIC to be able to do anything. I had an external hard drive though, and one of my proudest moments was re-writing part of SOS to be able to treat the internal floppy and the external one as a single contiguous volume.
People like to feel they're in charge. If they've got a map, they're in charge. If you're just doing what the voice tells you, then you're not in charge.
Even assuming it is being done under the auspices of a non-friendly state (more like amused tolerance, I'd suspect), I really don't see where this qualifies or could qualify as "cyberwarfare". Warfare involves violently taking and controlling ground in order to control land, people, and resources; a properly secured server can be denied access to the net for a short length of time, but that cannot be an end in warfare itself, so the word is just stupid hype. In any case, these services are almost certainly being bought on the open market, not launched by homegrown talent - apart from anything else, what's the point of running an attack from a known NK netblock?
Can you say joe job? Also, the FTC website is down? OMG THE FTC WEBSITE IS DOWN!!!! Oh hang on, wait, ermm, world totally failing to collapse here. Can we stop calling this rubbish cyber warfare and call it a middling DoS attack, which is what it is? It's not war, it's pathetic. 4chan could probably do better than this.
I recommend Internet Central - £22.50/m for wires-only ADSL, they max out your connection to whatever it can take, no fair use policy that I've ever hit, they don't play for the IWF, and they have fantastic 24 hour phone support. Been with them three years and not a word of complaint.
Errm, his term limit expires in January. Zelaya certainly appears to have been playing fast and loose with his country's Constitution, but more so did the military and the Honduran Congress. What is clear is that in Honduras, the military is calling the shots and regardless of the circumstances, that is not right.
Hmm. His importance in avoiding a nuclear holocaust is debatable, and given his managerial style he would not have been a good man to have in place had it kicked off. In the meantime, he was largely responsible for the Vietnam debacle, which killed ten times the number of Americans as the current "war on terror" has.
Also, you can apparently get modded up despite calling them crackheads and dumb in the same post. Mods are asses. Neener neener.
Diplomacy. It's basically two new administrations getting to know each other in areas that they more or less agree on. The US can reduce stockpiles a long way with no significant military compromise, and Russia just needs to reduce its costs. And it looks very good to the masses.
Occasionally a crackhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mod will be so impressed by a funny post that they will award it karma-bearing insightful mods as opposed to karma-less funny mods. Alternatively, they're so dumb they believed it, which is not as unlikely as it used to be.
But also stupid enough to spend time doing silly tasks for vastly less money than one would expect on the open market.
You can get away with that when you're the NSA, but I'd suggest that a typical quant is not going to play nicely with a policy like that. I would rather take the risk than scare away talent by running a shop on that basis. At the end of the day, the contents of that guy's head are worth more than the mere code he was working on.
Possibly because in that position you need internet access to do your job.
You mean something like this? Good idea.
In Scots law, at least, it would be. There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack, which resulted in manslaughter charges (although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances). Scots law on manslaughter is, I think, common law, and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law.
And what if I invent a power generation system fueled by butterflies? Cap and trade has two major advantages: (1) it reduces emissions to the target level, by definition, and (2) markets are not distorted. Your plan is just fine, right up until a major oil field is discovered and the price of oil drops by half.
Indeed. Most of the posters here don't seem to realise Wikipedia already has well defined procedures for cases of this sort (they are known as office actions, as they are taken by the foundation office) - they're more often invoked for issues like litigation and court injunctions, but this seems a perfectly legitimate use as well. As for press hypocrisy, well, yes, but I don't see what that has to do with Wikipedia.