Do youl file taxes with the IRS? Do you own a passport? The government already has plenty of your data. Healthcare won't change much.
Spoken like a true ACA apologist. Before that law went into effect, the 'data' the IRS or State Dept had on me was all largely discoverable through a few simple public records searches, and a beginners OSINT effort. Not all my salary would be hard to determine specifically, and my SSN might be moderately difficult to discover. Otherwise the IRS had name, address, phone, bank account numbers (anyone who has ever handled a check you have written has access to that), DOB (you probably share that on FaceSpace), number of kids (already public record), marital status (again already public record).
Letting the government in on medical history is an entirely new and invasive situation for anyone who hasn't filed for Medicare / SS Disability. Quit trying to pretend different.
First off they are not fake certs, they are they are just issued by the companies internal certificate authority.
Your corporate laptop does not belong to you. It was given to you to do the work the company pays you for not for your personal banking or anything else. It isn't the least bit unreasonable for them to configure it how they choose with whatever certificate trusts they want. Again its not your computer you can decide if you trust it/them with your personal stuff or not.
Additionally I can tell you outbound SSL interception is NECESSARY on corporate networks. In todays world of botnets and hacks you cannot claim to be doing due diligence to protect the company's trade secrets, financial data, IP assets, and all the PII of employees corporations handle if you just let everything go out the door in an opaque way like well a firewall rule that says "hey 443 outbound anything goes". Seriously if you still think this is an okay policy and a medium or large business and you have Security responsibilities, you should be fired.
Contrary to what you may think your IT Security department has better things to do than spy on your facebook likes and drug prescriptions. They don't care and in most cases actively don't want to know. What they do want is to make sure your traffic gets a pass over their IDS signatures, custom rules to grab anything with internal document numbers, botnet detection algorithms, etc. They also want to track statistically unusual large outbound transfers and log that they occurred so there is some evidence and some kind of history of events can get put together after the fact if something does happen. They probably log request headers etc for the same reason, but I doubt very much anyone looks at them, except when a need for forensic investigation arises.
I can tell, we never spied on our co-workers when I was managing system similar to bluecoat. We only tested capabilities within our group (with full knowledge) to make sure things worked. We were open about the fact they we inspected outbound traffic with the organization. Any employee who opened the handbook or read the first paragraph of our acceptable use policy they had to sign as part of their hiring documents knew we had these capabilities.
Not entirely true, I can't do much about you knowing I connected to www.dol.gov, but TLS would prevent you from know if I was researching whistle-blower laws or just after some employment statistics to make a decision about what sectors to invest my 401K in.
Even for just viewing mostly static content TLS does afford some privacy which may be important in some situations. I will concede though that compared to most other threats to online communications this is probably of least concern.
"Firefox57 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1) Like Opera and Google Chrome" you insensitive clod. Its hell to escape starting from the CLI.
As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks.
It sounds good but there are still many bridges to cross. While they might be able to get federal monies, that is about the only thing they can count on. As far as a spot in the debates goes those are all run by private business they can do whatever they like. If one of the majors candidates, quietly informs the networks hosting they would likely decline a debate invitation should they discover $3rdParty candidate gets an invite; I am sure that is where it would end.
Different states have differing rules on what it takes to get a state funded primary too. Primary fights and returns being talked about in news articles represents lots of face time and name recognition buildings prior to the general election, good luck getting to 15pct without the now nearly year long series of primary horse race stories the majors get.
Even the education system gets kids accustom to the idea of two parties and familiar with the two brands.
Its stacked against any third party at so many levels I really wonder how one could ever succeed. The Ron Paul strategy of hijacking one of the existing parties was and is probably the most viable solution. Because getting from the 2-3% numbers third parties have managed to put up to 15% might as well be like trying to get to Mars by flapping your arms.
I hate the language because its wildly in accurate. It should read an attacker on a network between yours and the servers, inclusive.
Anyone who can MITM the traffic in anyway can use most vulnerabilities that are written up that way. I don't care if its thru some source routing, arp poisoning, packet capture off router or switch interface you traffic will traverse, maybe manipulating related traffic like DNS replies so you address them and they proxy; whatever. There are literally tons of ways.
I think that language was just stuck in there by certain players to down play the seriousness of their 'remote exploits'
JavaScript is not a solution to this problem. To use PKI effectively you MUST trust the client. You can't trust the client if its being sent to you from the one of the men in the middle "Yahoo" every time you use it.
All it takes is for any of the following to happen and you are boned.
1) Someone SE's a CA or obtains a Yahoo.com Certificate by some other method, national security letter, hack of yahoo etc, the MITM you an Yahoo
2) Somebody hacks Yahoo and is able to alter the content on their web servers
3) Yahoo complies with some third party request of some kind.
In all of these cases someone can simply change the JS implementation to send them the content or send them the keys, and your browser won't blink. It won't tell you anything has happened.
At least with a plugin you are aware when you are asked to update it etc. I am not aware of any current browser that will just update a plugin without asking. So if you are sufficiently paranoid to say, "this could possibly be fishy I am going to not check my mail right now and make sure the same thing happens on a better secured host and edge network someplace else" you might be spared. Its still not a good system though.
The problem in the old USSR (and my uncle was part of the US Envoy there so I have heard lots of first hand information) is that if the party decided they wanted you to be guilty of something, you were guilty of something.
This is sadly much the same situation we have in the USA today, although its not exploited as overtly and often, *yet*. Our legal system and tax system is so complex even the most well meaning and complicit individuals out there probably break the law everyday and don't even know it.
So there are two major problems. One there are to many laws of to great a complexity for the majority of members in our society to discover and understand. Placing them in constant jeopardy of shipped off on some trumped up charge.
The rules are enforced in a completely unequal way. Work at bank and do things that make it plain obvious you had to knowingly be an accomplish to fraud accepting bogus mortgage documentation and nobody will look at you because the PTBs want to make the "systemic risk" thing slide nicely back under the rug as quickly as possible.
Walk down the side walk in NYC smoking a tiny water-pipe, while being black you are sure to get the full stop-and-frisk treatment even if it obviously smells of only tobacco and likely a trip to the station for good measure, finally to be charged with violating some nuisance law.
Work in the presidential administration want and want to go on flagrantly violating rules about aide distribution to nations after a coup, no problem just interpret law to your favor, "Oh but we are not required to determine if a coup has ever occurred."
No when you get pulled over for running a red light try explaining to the nice police office how, while you understand the motor vehicle code requires you to comply with all traffic signals it does not explicitly state you need to determine if a traffic signal is present, and you therefor must be excused. Hey it worked for Kerry, let get back to us and let us know how it worked for you.
So I don't think legalism is a good policy, because I don't want to go away for 20 years because I filled a form out wrong.
You'd think AV companies would at least dump there signature to group of test machines running the past few releases of their product and on popular OS combinations and at least put them through a reboot. It should be easy and quick to script that out on any visualization platform.
15 years ago, I would have given them a pass because doing really complete QA would have more than likely add significant lag time to pushing signatures making A/V more useless than it already is/was. Now days though it should be possible to do in easily, with VMs and dev-ops techniques.
This kinda thing should tell you the company is completely inept.
The kernels default should be the revision the kernel implements. If the kernel implements five the value should be five. A report_acpi_ver= flag seems like a perfectly reasonable solution, but it should be up to the distros to override that with their boot loader configs; where someone might actually see it. If its really such a common problem that it makes sense to do that widely out of box in the first place.
Software should do the least astonishing thing, and I think having the kernel inaccurately report acpi support would qualify as astonishing.
Yes, but you forget just yesterday on Slashdot we had to read about how taking away everyone's gun rights would prevent suicide. When a few people suggested that if someone really want's to kill themselves who are we to get in the way; the "I know what's good for you" types jumped all over them.
They insisted depression is a terrible disease that societal must protect people from. I guess by removing all the sharp objects, and fire arms lest some un-diagnosed individual hurt themselves.
So first if we let people choose to die, who exactly and how exactly are we to decide who is permitted to make such a choice. How would psychiatric approval work exactly? Right now Psychiatrists are required to act when someone is potentially going to harm themselves. How could they ever 'approve' of someones mental state, who says they wish to die and plan to kill themselves?
Secondly suppose someone is depressed, lots of depression treatment is less than successful, is that person not suffering, what if they want to die to escape their depression. Are the mentally fit to make that decision..
See I think its all BS. If someone wants to kill themselves, we should let them. People call suicide selfish, but the truth is its that persons own life, you and I have no claim on it. If it is there wish to surrender it, for any reason I don't see how any of us have the right to interfere however much we might love or miss them if they were gone.
I think the problem here, if there is one (and I am with you on not being so sure there is) just how far removed from an event under investigation do you need to before you can't be subject to warrants related to it.
Right now a Judge or Magistrate basically determines this. I am not sure what standards may exist beyond probably cause of finding evidence. So here we have a guy where there is nothing at all to tie him to the events except DNA match that is actually exculpatory in that its clear he isn't a match for the sample the Police believe is that of the perps; however it does indicate he may be a family member however distant. The police want to confirm this. Is it reasonable to "search" his blood to confirm the match, and is that than cause to search everyone one of his relations, and their offspring?
Its kinda like the NSA's 3 degrees thing, does this simply open the door to the government being free to collect DNA samples form most citizens? We do need to look at some old assumptions in the face of new tech. In the past you had to manually do DNA compares between two samples, now you digitize results and search a database. Where you would not in the past have do a comparison with someone who could not have committed the crime now you effective compare with every sample taken from everywhere. Based on those past assumptions we figured limiting collection to convicts, voluntary submitters, and those we had probable cause for protected most folks privacy. An situation like this would be rare; if it did happen we probably would have permitted it; thinking the scope was highly limited, now it could easily pull most of us in.
At least at common law assault is the "putting in of fear", and battery has "physical contact" so if you killed them without scaring or physically touching them it would be possible.
For example if you crawled under their car at night and partially loosed the bleed screws on their breaks, and cut the line on the mechanical break; knowing they would porbably have enough fluid to get onto the interstate in heavy traffic for their morning commute before discovering anything was wrong. If they do get killed, I can see that leading to murder conviction without assault or battery.
You know what I am just going to come out and say it. Its not a human rights violation or a violation of equal protection.
I frankly don't care if two same sex people want to get married or if a "transgender" person wants to use a bathroom with a picture on the door not reflective of their body type or not.
Nobodies rights are being violated though by banning same sex marriage, or this bathroom nonsense.
Homosexuals are just as free to marry someone with the opposite set of genitalia as everyone else, and just a restricted from marring someone with the same genitals as everyone else. Love has nothing to do with it. There is no law that requires you to love the person to whom you are married or the person you intend to marry.
Same thing with this bathroom stuff. Got a penis, use the damn mens room, got a vagina, ladies room. Its about how you look not how you feel.
No their caring about underprivileged is not the problem but caring more about it than putting out a good product and keeping a proven leader in place because he has an opinion that has nothing to do with there business some people did not like might be.
Hell, ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because of the poor decisions made after the invasion.
No contest. Its Bush's fault, but Bush nearly had it fixed. Things were going quite well in Iraq when he left office. Obama should NOT have agreed to remove the troops, have not consented to turn the security operation over to the Iraqi government. He should not have done Libya and we should not have backed the rebellion in Syria, we should be treating the ISIS government in Egypt as a the coup it is/was.
Those are the reasons ISIS is what it is. Those are all Obama/Hillary decisions. The outcomes were all highly predictably too, for anyone who was paying attention to the immediate after math of the Iraqi invasion. Obama and most of the people who seem so proud of their opposition than and now were to busy rubbing everyone else's face in it to learn anything. If they had the draw down would have been delayed. You can see this attitude still reflected in the media bias. Libya is a failed state now, and ISIS is there. Yet you hardly hear about anything buy Iraq. Face you and a whole bunch of others are trying to give Obama a free pass, but the fact is he made LOTS of AVOIDABLE mistakes, the SAME MISTAKES Bush made. When you have the benefit of seeing what the guy right before you got and do the exact same things, that's deeply pathetic.
The sensible alternative is just let ISIS have its day. Don't go back to Iraq, don't fight them in Syria or Libya. ISIS can't govern its not like the Taliban in Afghanistan was. The Iraqi, Syrian, and Libyan people know what a modern society looks like, they won't stand for ISIS style brutality for long. At worst it will be a perpetual series of unending uprisings and tribal conflicts. It will keep them to damn busy to attack us or Western Europe, Iran and Egypt are almost certain to be drawn in as well. We will get to find out how effective the Iranian army really still is. The nuclear issue will go away because Iran will devoting all its resources into boarder security.
The ONLY choices are go big or go home. Either we need a large enough occupying force and enough direct influence of the the decision makers in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and possibly Egypt or we should get the hell out! To do otherwise is going to result in spending a steady stream of treasure and American lives that only keeps things to a slow simmer over there with plenty of lawless territories for terror cells to workout how to blow up Western shopping malls and magazines. It will never end.
No actually Obama handed Iraq to ISIS. I can agree Bush went in there with some very naive thinking and it was probably a bad idea. After the fall of Sadam and some initial missteps by Rumsfeld and Bremer the Bush administration learned from their mistakes.
The Iraq situation was in point of fact one of nearly continuous improvement from that point forward until Obummer took office. Obama having campaigned on getting out of Iraq elected to ignore all of the advice the out going Bush people tried to pass along. He essentially went back to the failed Rumsfeld policy of trying to believe hard enough the Iraqies were ready to self govern.
Predictably without constant council and American support Nouri al-Maliki turned to his Shiite friends, who would not agree with you about being religiously similar to their Sunni counter parts (who ISIS and Al-queda are mostly made up of). The Iraqi army turned and ran not because they did not want fight ISIS but because they were incapable of doing so and knew it. Thanks to Obama not keeping some control of the reigns in Iraq Maliki and his Shiite supporters had replaced the well trained professional folks in the Army with Shitte flunkies. Which by the way still make up the Iraqi Army/Government today!
Remember Sadar City? Yup its that Sadar that is contributing a huge part of the force we are now backing against ISIS. The idea we are assisting some legitimate democratic government in Iraq is a pure farce, Obama admin propaganda and nothing more. Its just a slightly different group of Terrorists that are we hope in the short term slightly less hostile to us. Iraq will always be Bush's fault, he got us into that mess. Still Obama has done quite literally nothing right since he has been in control. Obama's failure to accept and of the painful learned lessons by the Bush administration is what so much of Iraq is in the hands of ISIS today.
Meanwhile there is Libya. You'd think after opposing the Iraq war while in the Senate because its a bad idea to just topple governments with no plan and create a power vacuum Obama would have enough sense to not under take a "kinetic military action" to topple Qadffi (who had been recently cooperative with our war on terror efforts) but no he is just so much smarter than Bush, his foreign invasion would just naturally be successful right? Nope Libyians today are not better off, and ISIS is using Libyan territory too. Similarly helping the Syrian rebels has done nothing but prevent Assad from crushing them as he likely would have if we'd stayed out of it; ISIS is leveraging that mess as their central home.
We have Obama's policy failures to blame fore ISIS being more than a tiny disowned branch of Al-queda operating in the fringes of Iraq. Iraq might be Bush's fault but the blame for ISIS false squarely on Obama and Hillary.
The telemarketers probably are the NSA. Think about it you have the three steps bullshit. We are looking at Jane, who regularly gets calls from this number XXX-XXX-XXXX (so happens to be their own telemarketing front).
Next, they want to look at John and tap his phone too, but oh damn he isn't three steps away, it won't be covered by their FISA warrant. So they have the telemarketing co place a class to John.
Great now John is within three steps. Its all nice and legal....
There is no reason to think the court would require the entire stack / product to be opened. I don't anything any sensible read of the license would dictate that either.
At most vmkernel would have to be GPL licensed to use the code. The big question with the GPL (IANAL but have paid attention to this for a long time) is who can claim harm when its violated. Will the court agree the anyone who says they were harmed were harmed, is only the author harmed, are only users of the code harmed, is only the current copyright assignee harmed?
That all will have effects on standing. I can't succeed with a civil suit against you based on the claim your dog bit someone else kid and I read about it in the paper. I have not been harmed. This what the nature and magnitude of the harm is often affects the remedy in these cases too. If the court agreed for instance that everyone who used VMWare was harmed, the remedy might be they have to release the current version of vmkernel source and GPL it. If the court decides only the copyright holder(s) was harmed, who knows monetary valuation on code they don't sell won't be easy. The court might just say well you have to cease infringing their copyright if they ask you to. Which might not mean anymore than EMC has to remove the Linux code an issue a patch to existing customers.
And they're still lower than the costs of fossil fuel based technologies, which is global warming.
I think this viewpoint is incorrect. Society is pretty good at absorbing slow on going costs, like cancer deaths from burning coal and we actually do a pretty good job at addressing things like global warming. We will find a solution to that problem. It might be higher levies and sea walls or it might be some kind of geo engineering. Either way is a slow change we can adapt to.
A nuclear accident on the other hand is a sudden catastrophe that can destroy large areas. Unlike one of those possibly global warming storms, or an oil spill we don't have good ways to render the affected area safe for human habitation again in the short term. So there is a time value component that simply can't be ignored.
I think it naturally does in that your ability to run on a treadmill for an extended period is quite indicative of your overall health (if the study is correct). I don't think that is really much of a surprise. Health and fitness are pretty tightly coupled.
I am in my early thirties. I do a fair bit of hiking and I can tell you there are lots of 60 years out there that I can't keep up without it being workout. Most of them look great and will tell you they feel great. Is it correlation or causation? I suspect both, the older folks you meet 30+ miles into wilderness on some trail are both the ones healthy enough to get themselves there but one of the reasons for that is very likely the fact they undertake the regular exercise of doing it.
Same thing here, the folks that stay on the treadmill and don't peak out in terms of heart rate are probably pretty healthy. That is going to make them more resilient when it comes to recovery from disease etc. If they are already to sick to do it, they are kinda of by definition already less healthy and are therefore likely to have inferior recoupreative powers when they do get sick.
The point of the emitters is not block IR but screw up the camera's exposure. Ever take a picture of someone standing in front of bright light source, and had the subject come out all dark? Its fooled the camera's light meter.
Same kind of deal here, either the IR will wash out the image of the rest of your face, over exposing, or fool the camera into thinking the reflected light is greater than it is, under exposing. Either way the resulting image will be less detailed. There are darkroom/photo editing tricks to overcome this to a degree but it will complicate the process greatly for automated systems.
How the TSA will feel about it remains to be seen.
It might not have been too bad to go through and make sure it was just passing everything it used, but it was a lot of code and it kind of all needed to be changed at the same time.
I say this as someone who is generally sold on TDD being the best approach. At first it seem tedious never being able to write more than an handful of code line before having to stop and write a test, but the ultimate freedom it gives you to fearlessly refactor is worth it.
On the other hand I would never (have learned the lessons of trying) attempt to go back and create tests for a software project like the one you describe; and as a general rule anything substantial which does not have them.
It sounds like you are doing lots of shotgun surgery to nurse some spaghetti code along. One of the things TDD does for you is make you keenly aware of all the cross-cutting, coupling, and cohesion in your code. If you have organized something badly you discover its difficult to author a test for, that's clue something is wrong.
Trying to go back and write tests for code that isn't well organized is FAIL you won't write good tests because you can't and if you don't have good test coverage "passing everything" does not really tell you things are alright. Its painful pointless wheel spin.
Just live with it. Address the compiler warnings, try and diagram us much process flow an interactions across those globals as you can so you have a good picture to look at why you plan groups of changes, do your best and hope the QA test guys catch anything you break prior to release.
I think that is the idea behind the 'electrical pulses' the plan is to depend on neural plasticity, I would guess. The idea is you keep the patient comatose, stimulate nerves all over the body and up and down the spine. This should tetanize various groups of nerves, "cells the fire together wire together" with some luck the brain with figure it out.
I know brain injuries for events like near downing occasional leave bodies that can recover to health but the brain so damaged they will never escape a vegetative state. Certainly other brain injuries due to head knocks etc can have similar results.
How many of these bodies are really available? Hollywood would have us believe quite a lot but I am not sure that is the case.
That said how many of these potential donators are really out there ethically speaking? The body deteriorates when we are talking about a persistent vegetative state requiring feeding tubes and ventilators and such. Can we, will we in the foreseeable future be able to better identify when the patients brain won't recover. Right now there is already a financial incentive to pull the plug. What will happen to these patients who can't speak for themselves when those making decisions for them are under pressure to give their body to someone else? Will these lead to prematurely giving up on some folks?
Seems like there should be some lower hanging fruit to go after in terms of modern medicine than head swaps. In fact just focusing reconnecting the sever spinal cord in the same monkey without adding the additional trauma and unknowns associated with the rest of the head swap would probably do more to help the disabled, which I am sure far out number the persistently comatose.
Slashdot Mirror
Do youl file taxes with the IRS? Do you own a passport? The government already has plenty of your data. Healthcare won't change much.
Spoken like a true ACA apologist. Before that law went into effect, the 'data' the IRS or State Dept had on me was all largely discoverable through a few simple public records searches, and a beginners OSINT effort. Not all my salary would be hard to determine specifically, and my SSN might be moderately difficult to discover. Otherwise the IRS had name, address, phone, bank account numbers (anyone who has ever handled a check you have written has access to that), DOB (you probably share that on FaceSpace), number of kids (already public record), marital status (again already public record).
Letting the government in on medical history is an entirely new and invasive situation for anyone who hasn't filed for Medicare / SS Disability. Quit trying to pretend different.
First off they are not fake certs, they are they are just issued by the companies internal certificate authority.
Your corporate laptop does not belong to you. It was given to you to do the work the company pays you for not for your personal banking or anything else. It isn't the least bit unreasonable for them to configure it how they choose with whatever certificate trusts they want. Again its not your computer you can decide if you trust it/them with your personal stuff or not.
Additionally I can tell you outbound SSL interception is NECESSARY on corporate networks. In todays world of botnets and hacks you cannot claim to be doing due diligence to protect the company's trade secrets, financial data, IP assets, and all the PII of employees corporations handle if you just let everything go out the door in an opaque way like well a firewall rule that says "hey 443 outbound anything goes". Seriously if you still think this is an okay policy and a medium or large business and you have Security responsibilities, you should be fired.
Contrary to what you may think your IT Security department has better things to do than spy on your facebook likes and drug prescriptions. They don't care and in most cases actively don't want to know. What they do want is to make sure your traffic gets a pass over their IDS signatures, custom rules to grab anything with internal document numbers, botnet detection algorithms, etc. They also want to track statistically unusual large outbound transfers and log that they occurred so there is some evidence and some kind of history of events can get put together after the fact if something does happen. They probably log request headers etc for the same reason, but I doubt very much anyone looks at them, except when a need for forensic investigation arises.
I can tell, we never spied on our co-workers when I was managing system similar to bluecoat. We only tested capabilities within our group (with full knowledge) to make sure things worked. We were open about the fact they we inspected outbound traffic with the organization. Any employee who opened the handbook or read the first paragraph of our acceptable use policy they had to sign as part of their hiring documents knew we had these capabilities.
Not entirely true, I can't do much about you knowing I connected to www.dol.gov, but TLS would prevent you from know if I was researching whistle-blower laws or just after some employment statistics to make a decision about what sectors to invest my 401K in.
Even for just viewing mostly static content TLS does afford some privacy which may be important in some situations. I will concede though that compared to most other threats to online communications this is probably of least concern.
Hey my browser is actually named.
"Firefox57 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1) Like Opera and Google Chrome" you insensitive clod. Its hell to escape starting from the CLI.
As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks.
It sounds good but there are still many bridges to cross. While they might be able to get federal monies, that is about the only thing they can count on. As far as a spot in the debates goes those are all run by private business they can do whatever they like. If one of the majors candidates, quietly informs the networks hosting they would likely decline a debate invitation should they discover $3rdParty candidate gets an invite; I am sure that is where it would end.
Different states have differing rules on what it takes to get a state funded primary too. Primary fights and returns being talked about in news articles represents lots of face time and name recognition buildings prior to the general election, good luck getting to 15pct without the now nearly year long series of primary horse race stories the majors get.
Even the education system gets kids accustom to the idea of two parties and familiar with the two brands.
Its stacked against any third party at so many levels I really wonder how one could ever succeed. The Ron Paul strategy of hijacking one of the existing parties was and is probably the most viable solution. Because getting from the 2-3% numbers third parties have managed to put up to 15% might as well be like trying to get to Mars by flapping your arms.
...an attacker on the same network...
I hate the language because its wildly in accurate. It should read an attacker on a network between yours and the servers, inclusive.
Anyone who can MITM the traffic in anyway can use most vulnerabilities that are written up that way. I don't care if its thru some source routing, arp poisoning, packet capture off router or switch interface you traffic will traverse, maybe manipulating related traffic like DNS replies so you address them and they proxy; whatever. There are literally tons of ways.
I think that language was just stuck in there by certain players to down play the seriousness of their 'remote exploits'
JavaScript is not a solution to this problem. To use PKI effectively you MUST trust the client. You can't trust the client if its being sent to you from the one of the men in the middle "Yahoo" every time you use it.
All it takes is for any of the following to happen and you are boned.
1) Someone SE's a CA or obtains a Yahoo.com Certificate by some other method, national security letter, hack of yahoo etc, the MITM you an Yahoo
2) Somebody hacks Yahoo and is able to alter the content on their web servers
3) Yahoo complies with some third party request of some kind.
In all of these cases someone can simply change the JS implementation to send them the content or send them the keys, and your browser won't blink. It won't tell you anything has happened.
At least with a plugin you are aware when you are asked to update it etc. I am not aware of any current browser that will just update a plugin without asking. So if you are sufficiently paranoid to say, "this could possibly be fishy I am going to not check my mail right now and make sure the same thing happens on a better secured host and edge network someplace else" you might be spared. Its still not a good system though.
The problem in the old USSR (and my uncle was part of the US Envoy there so I have heard lots of first hand information) is that if the party decided they wanted you to be guilty of something, you were guilty of something.
This is sadly much the same situation we have in the USA today, although its not exploited as overtly and often, *yet*. Our legal system and tax system is so complex even the most well meaning and complicit individuals out there probably break the law everyday and don't even know it.
So there are two major problems. One there are to many laws of to great a complexity for the majority of members in our society to discover and understand. Placing them in constant jeopardy of shipped off on some trumped up charge.
The rules are enforced in a completely unequal way. Work at bank and do things that make it plain obvious you had to knowingly be an accomplish to fraud accepting bogus mortgage documentation and nobody will look at you because the PTBs want to make the "systemic risk" thing slide nicely back under the rug as quickly as possible.
Walk down the side walk in NYC smoking a tiny water-pipe, while being black you are sure to get the full stop-and-frisk treatment even if it obviously smells of only tobacco and likely a trip to the station for good measure, finally to be charged with violating some nuisance law.
Work in the presidential administration want and want to go on flagrantly violating rules about aide distribution to nations after a coup, no problem just interpret law to your favor, "Oh but we are not required to determine if a coup has ever occurred."
No when you get pulled over for running a red light try explaining to the nice police office how, while you understand the motor vehicle code requires you to comply with all traffic signals it does not explicitly state you need to determine if a traffic signal is present, and you therefor must be excused. Hey it worked for Kerry, let get back to us and let us know how it worked for you.
So I don't think legalism is a good policy, because I don't want to go away for 20 years because I filled a form out wrong.
You'd think AV companies would at least dump there signature to group of test machines running the past few releases of their product and on popular OS combinations and at least put them through a reboot. It should be easy and quick to script that out on any visualization platform.
15 years ago, I would have given them a pass because doing really complete QA would have more than likely add significant lag time to pushing signatures making A/V more useless than it already is/was. Now days though it should be possible to do in easily, with VMs and dev-ops techniques.
This kinda thing should tell you the company is completely inept.
The kernels default should be the revision the kernel implements. If the kernel implements five the value should be five. A report_acpi_ver= flag seems like a perfectly reasonable solution, but it should be up to the distros to override that with their boot loader configs; where someone might actually see it. If its really such a common problem that it makes sense to do that widely out of box in the first place.
Software should do the least astonishing thing, and I think having the kernel inaccurately report acpi support would qualify as astonishing.
Yes, but you forget just yesterday on Slashdot we had to read about how taking away everyone's gun rights would prevent suicide. When a few people suggested that if someone really want's to kill themselves who are we to get in the way; the "I know what's good for you" types jumped all over them.
They insisted depression is a terrible disease that societal must protect people from. I guess by removing all the sharp objects, and fire arms lest some un-diagnosed individual hurt themselves.
So first if we let people choose to die, who exactly and how exactly are we to decide who is permitted to make such a choice. How would psychiatric approval work exactly? Right now Psychiatrists are required to act when someone is potentially going to harm themselves. How could they ever 'approve' of someones mental state, who says they wish to die and plan to kill themselves?
Secondly suppose someone is depressed, lots of depression treatment is less than successful, is that person not suffering, what if they want to die to escape their depression. Are the mentally fit to make that decision..
See I think its all BS. If someone wants to kill themselves, we should let them. People call suicide selfish, but the truth is its that persons own life, you and I have no claim on it. If it is there wish to surrender it, for any reason I don't see how any of us have the right to interfere however much we might love or miss them if they were gone.
I think the problem here, if there is one (and I am with you on not being so sure there is) just how far removed from an event under investigation do you need to before you can't be subject to warrants related to it.
Right now a Judge or Magistrate basically determines this. I am not sure what standards may exist beyond probably cause of finding evidence. So here we have a guy where there is nothing at all to tie him to the events except DNA match that is actually exculpatory in that its clear he isn't a match for the sample the Police believe is that of the perps; however it does indicate he may be a family member however distant. The police want to confirm this. Is it reasonable to "search" his blood to confirm the match, and is that than cause to search everyone one of his relations, and their offspring?
Its kinda like the NSA's 3 degrees thing, does this simply open the door to the government being free to collect DNA samples form most citizens? We do need to look at some old assumptions in the face of new tech. In the past you had to manually do DNA compares between two samples, now you digitize results and search a database. Where you would not in the past have do a comparison with someone who could not have committed the crime now you effective compare with every sample taken from everywhere. Based on those past assumptions we figured limiting collection to convicts, voluntary submitters, and those we had probable cause for protected most folks privacy. An situation like this would be rare; if it did happen we probably would have permitted it; thinking the scope was highly limited, now it could easily pull most of us in.
At least at common law assault is the "putting in of fear", and battery has "physical contact" so if you killed them without scaring or physically touching them it would be possible.
For example if you crawled under their car at night and partially loosed the bleed screws on their breaks, and cut the line on the mechanical break; knowing they would porbably have enough fluid to get onto the interstate in heavy traffic for their morning commute before discovering anything was wrong. If they do get killed, I can see that leading to murder conviction without assault or battery.
You know what I am just going to come out and say it. Its not a human rights violation or a violation of equal protection.
I frankly don't care if two same sex people want to get married or if a "transgender" person wants to use a bathroom with a picture on the door not reflective of their body type or not.
Nobodies rights are being violated though by banning same sex marriage, or this bathroom nonsense.
Homosexuals are just as free to marry someone with the opposite set of genitalia as everyone else, and just a restricted from marring someone with the same genitals as everyone else. Love has nothing to do with it. There is no law that requires you to love the person to whom you are married or the person you intend to marry.
Same thing with this bathroom stuff. Got a penis, use the damn mens room, got a vagina, ladies room. Its about how you look not how you feel.
Its all prefectly EQUAL
No their caring about underprivileged is not the problem but caring more about it than putting out a good product and keeping a proven leader in place because he has an opinion that has nothing to do with there business some people did not like might be.
Hell, ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because of the poor decisions made after the invasion.
No contest. Its Bush's fault, but Bush nearly had it fixed. Things were going quite well in Iraq when he left office. Obama should NOT have agreed to remove the troops, have not consented to turn the security operation over to the Iraqi government. He should not have done Libya and we should not have backed the rebellion in Syria, we should be treating the ISIS government in Egypt as a the coup it is/was.
Those are the reasons ISIS is what it is. Those are all Obama/Hillary decisions. The outcomes were all highly predictably too, for anyone who was paying attention to the immediate after math of the Iraqi invasion. Obama and most of the people who seem so proud of their opposition than and now were to busy rubbing everyone else's face in it to learn anything. If they had the draw down would have been delayed. You can see this attitude still reflected in the media bias. Libya is a failed state now, and ISIS is there. Yet you hardly hear about anything buy Iraq. Face you and a whole bunch of others are trying to give Obama a free pass, but the fact is he made LOTS of AVOIDABLE mistakes, the SAME MISTAKES Bush made. When you have the benefit of seeing what the guy right before you got and do the exact same things, that's deeply pathetic.
The sensible alternative is just let ISIS have its day. Don't go back to Iraq, don't fight them in Syria or Libya. ISIS can't govern its not like the Taliban in Afghanistan was. The Iraqi, Syrian, and Libyan people know what a modern society looks like, they won't stand for ISIS style brutality for long. At worst it will be a perpetual series of unending uprisings and tribal conflicts. It will keep them to damn busy to attack us or Western Europe, Iran and Egypt are almost certain to be drawn in as well. We will get to find out how effective the Iranian army really still is. The nuclear issue will go away because Iran will devoting all its resources into boarder security.
The ONLY choices are go big or go home. Either we need a large enough occupying force and enough direct influence of the the decision makers in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and possibly Egypt or we should get the hell out! To do otherwise is going to result in spending a steady stream of treasure and American lives that only keeps things to a slow simmer over there with plenty of lawless territories for terror cells to workout how to blow up Western shopping malls and magazines. It will never end.
No actually Obama handed Iraq to ISIS. I can agree Bush went in there with some very naive thinking and it was probably a bad idea. After the fall of Sadam and some initial missteps by Rumsfeld and Bremer the Bush administration learned from their mistakes.
The Iraq situation was in point of fact one of nearly continuous improvement from that point forward until Obummer took office. Obama having campaigned on getting out of Iraq elected to ignore all of the advice the out going Bush people tried to pass along. He essentially went back to the failed Rumsfeld policy of trying to believe hard enough the Iraqies were ready to self govern.
Predictably without constant council and American support Nouri al-Maliki turned to his Shiite friends, who would not agree with you about being religiously similar to their Sunni counter parts (who ISIS and Al-queda are mostly made up of). The Iraqi army turned and ran not because they did not want fight ISIS but because they were incapable of doing so and knew it. Thanks to Obama not keeping some control of the reigns in Iraq Maliki and his Shiite supporters had replaced the well trained professional folks in the Army with Shitte flunkies. Which by the way still make up the Iraqi Army/Government today!
Remember Sadar City? Yup its that Sadar that is contributing a huge part of the force we are now backing against ISIS. The idea we are assisting some legitimate democratic government in Iraq is a pure farce, Obama admin propaganda and nothing more. Its just a slightly different group of Terrorists that are we hope in the short term slightly less hostile to us. Iraq will always be Bush's fault, he got us into that mess. Still Obama has done quite literally nothing right since he has been in control. Obama's failure to accept and of the painful learned lessons by the Bush administration is what so much of Iraq is in the hands of ISIS today.
Meanwhile there is Libya. You'd think after opposing the Iraq war while in the Senate because its a bad idea to just topple governments with no plan and create a power vacuum Obama would have enough sense to not under take a "kinetic military action" to topple Qadffi (who had been recently cooperative with our war on terror efforts) but no he is just so much smarter than Bush, his foreign invasion would just naturally be successful right? Nope Libyians today are not better off, and ISIS is using Libyan territory too. Similarly helping the Syrian rebels has done nothing but prevent Assad from crushing them as he likely would have if we'd stayed out of it; ISIS is leveraging that mess as their central home.
We have Obama's policy failures to blame fore ISIS being more than a tiny disowned branch of Al-queda operating in the fringes of Iraq. Iraq might be Bush's fault but the blame for ISIS false squarely on Obama and Hillary.
The telemarketers probably are the NSA. Think about it you have the three steps bullshit. We are looking at Jane, who regularly gets calls from this number XXX-XXX-XXXX (so happens to be their own telemarketing front).
Next, they want to look at John and tap his phone too, but oh damn he isn't three steps away, it won't be covered by their FISA warrant. So they have the telemarketing co place a class to John.
Great now John is within three steps. Its all nice and legal....
There is no reason to think the court would require the entire stack / product to be opened. I don't anything any sensible read of the license would dictate that either.
At most vmkernel would have to be GPL licensed to use the code. The big question with the GPL (IANAL but have paid attention to this for a long time) is who can claim harm when its violated. Will the court agree the anyone who says they were harmed were harmed, is only the author harmed, are only users of the code harmed, is only the current copyright assignee harmed?
That all will have effects on standing. I can't succeed with a civil suit against you based on the claim your dog bit someone else kid and I read about it in the paper. I have not been harmed. This what the nature and magnitude of the harm is often affects the remedy in these cases too. If the court agreed for instance that everyone who used VMWare was harmed, the remedy might be they have to release the current version of vmkernel source and GPL it. If the court decides only the copyright holder(s) was harmed, who knows monetary valuation on code they don't sell won't be easy. The court might just say well you have to cease infringing their copyright if they ask you to. Which might not mean anymore than EMC has to remove the Linux code an issue a patch to existing customers.
And they're still lower than the costs of fossil fuel based technologies, which is global warming.
I think this viewpoint is incorrect. Society is pretty good at absorbing slow on going costs, like cancer deaths from burning coal and we actually do a pretty good job at addressing things like global warming. We will find a solution to that problem. It might be higher levies and sea walls or it might be some kind of geo engineering. Either way is a slow change we can adapt to.
A nuclear accident on the other hand is a sudden catastrophe that can destroy large areas. Unlike one of those possibly global warming storms, or an oil spill we don't have good ways to render the affected area safe for human habitation again in the short term. So there is a time value component that simply can't be ignored.
I think it naturally does in that your ability to run on a treadmill for an extended period is quite indicative of your overall health (if the study is correct). I don't think that is really much of a surprise. Health and fitness are pretty tightly coupled.
I am in my early thirties. I do a fair bit of hiking and I can tell you there are lots of 60 years out there that I can't keep up without it being workout. Most of them look great and will tell you they feel great. Is it correlation or causation? I suspect both, the older folks you meet 30+ miles into wilderness on some trail are both the ones healthy enough to get themselves there but one of the reasons for that is very likely the fact they undertake the regular exercise of doing it.
Same thing here, the folks that stay on the treadmill and don't peak out in terms of heart rate are probably pretty healthy. That is going to make them more resilient when it comes to recovery from disease etc. If they are already to sick to do it, they are kinda of by definition already less healthy and are therefore likely to have inferior recoupreative powers when they do get sick.
The point of the emitters is not block IR but screw up the camera's exposure. Ever take a picture of someone standing in front of bright light source, and had the subject come out all dark? Its fooled the camera's light meter.
Same kind of deal here, either the IR will wash out the image of the rest of your face, over exposing, or fool the camera into thinking the reflected light is greater than it is, under exposing. Either way the resulting image will be less detailed. There are darkroom/photo editing tricks to overcome this to a degree but it will complicate the process greatly for automated systems.
How the TSA will feel about it remains to be seen.
It might not have been too bad to go through and make sure it was just passing everything it used, but it was a lot of code and it kind of all needed to be changed at the same time.
I say this as someone who is generally sold on TDD being the best approach. At first it seem tedious never being able to write more than an handful of code line before having to stop and write a test, but the ultimate freedom it gives you to fearlessly refactor is worth it.
On the other hand I would never (have learned the lessons of trying) attempt to go back and create tests for a software project like the one you describe; and as a general rule anything substantial which does not have them.
It sounds like you are doing lots of shotgun surgery to nurse some spaghetti code along. One of the things TDD does for you is make you keenly aware of all the cross-cutting, coupling, and cohesion in your code. If you have organized something badly you discover its difficult to author a test for, that's clue something is wrong.
Trying to go back and write tests for code that isn't well organized is FAIL you won't write good tests because you can't and if you don't have good test coverage "passing everything" does not really tell you things are alright. Its painful pointless wheel spin.
Just live with it. Address the compiler warnings, try and diagram us much process flow an interactions across those globals as you can so you have a good picture to look at why you plan groups of changes, do your best and hope the QA test guys catch anything you break prior to release.
I think that is the idea behind the 'electrical pulses' the plan is to depend on neural plasticity, I would guess. The idea is you keep the patient comatose, stimulate nerves all over the body and up and down the spine. This should tetanize various groups of nerves, "cells the fire together wire together" with some luck the brain with figure it out.
Seems suspect to me, but IAMNANS
I know brain injuries for events like near downing occasional leave bodies that can recover to health but the brain so damaged they will never escape a vegetative state. Certainly other brain injuries due to head knocks etc can have similar results.
How many of these bodies are really available? Hollywood would have us believe quite a lot but I am not sure that is the case.
That said how many of these potential donators are really out there ethically speaking? The body deteriorates when we are talking about a persistent vegetative state requiring feeding tubes and ventilators and such. Can we, will we in the foreseeable future be able to better identify when the patients brain won't recover. Right now there is already a financial incentive to pull the plug. What will happen to these patients who can't speak for themselves when those making decisions for them are under pressure to give their body to someone else? Will these lead to prematurely giving up on some folks?
Seems like there should be some lower hanging fruit to go after in terms of modern medicine than head swaps. In fact just focusing reconnecting the sever spinal cord in the same monkey without adding the additional trauma and unknowns associated with the rest of the head swap would probably do more to help the disabled, which I am sure far out number the persistently comatose.