Microsoft and their sympathizers have claimed that the main reason it's the big victim of malware is that it is the big target, and that if other OSes were as widely deployed they'd be as riddled. Linux, BSD, Firefox, Apache, and other FOSS projects claim that it mainly Microsoft's poor security, not just the monoculture providing a big target.
Now we have million motherboards a month shipping with an identical OS - including a network stack and a browser - in the BIOS. Heavily used in this mode by the purchasers. If this is successfully suborned by malware it can romp all over the hard drive, even if the main system install isn't booted.
Seems to me this is a showdown between the Microsoft and FOSS sides' claims. B-)
Do you want a map which does not show what your country (and hopefully you) thinks, but instead shows what China wants to show?
I'm quite used to maps that show what the map company or some government wants them to show. (Maps of Germany, for instance, often showed a number of historic borders - keeping alive the idea that "this place really is part of Germany but we got kicked out of it in some war" for future generations. Map companies often distort roadmap geometry to make topological connections clearer. They also insert fictitious towns in remote places to catch competitors who copy their work rather than going to primary sources - something that can be life threatening for travelers in a remote region such as the US southwestern deserts, etc.)
I'm sure that Google's management is capable of considering things like how big the Taiwan market is, what effect showing it as part of China would have on customer usage (and ad revenue) both there and in other places (such as the US market), how to feed different maps to different regions, and so on.
Just need to make it powerful enough to climb aswell, as it is now it can only prolong your fall.
It's there now.
It appears that this one was more than powerful enough to climb. He could have proved it by climbing back up and overflying his starting point (if he had enough fuel). Instead he just used it to fly level until he ran out of fuel. That says he had at least as much thrust as drag, which effectively means he had thrust to spare for climbing (since these things never match exactly).
Notice how rapidly he builds up speed and vanishes into the distance. You can easily trade that velocity for altitude just by pulling up slightly - then level out and build more if you trade it away faster than the jets replenish it.
Strong adversity to an idea exerts a selective pressure. Much as the harsh and competitive environment of Africa did spawn the most successful mammals, so too might slashdot spawn successful technologies.
Or at least help evolve PR statements to promote the investment and sales necessary to turn a functionally successful technology into a marketplace success. B-)
Maybe he's not interested in "solving real problems" but making a fun toy. If you want to "advance society" knock yourself out but don't try to force everyone else to do things your way.
But making everyone else do things their way is how people who claim to be "advancing society" have their fun: using the rest of us as their toys.
And they consider it necessary. After all, "society" is everybody (except when it's "everybody but YOU"). To "advance" it they have to change the behavior of its members. Of course they change it to be more in line with what they consider "advanced".
If the poor, benighted people were happy doing things in a "less advanced" but more self-directed way, tough!
Dudes: If it flies it requires FAA certification. You may return to your crack pipes now.
If you had read the fine article you'd have seen that there were two major components to the answer for "Why now when it has always before been infeasible?":
1) New materials make it technically feasible.
2) New FAA regulations, creating a new class of aircraft (Light Sport) that's drastically easier to certify, makes it bureaucratically feasible.
If China is so determined to regulate what goes into the maps then just remove them. That way they can't complain about it. Just leave a blank area with a not available on picture day caption.
An old tradition for unmapped, hard to get to, areas was to label them with rumors, like "Here there be Dragons". Cartographer-speak for "This page intentionally left blank."
Given China's traditions about dragons it seems appropriate.
It was actually a little bit exciting to see the map in Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger, showing the United States Bullion Depository located at the intersection of Bullion Boulevard and Gold Vault Road. In those days before Wikipedia and Google Earth, this gave at least one reader frisson of forbidden information. I wondered whether Fleming would be the target of any mysterious reprisals for publishing it.
Given that Fleming (along with Eric Frank Russel) was in the British Military Intelligence during WWII and loosely based his fiction on his experiences there, I doubt that the US spook community would take reprisals against such an honored member of their fraternity (and potentially create a major international incident) over such a minor issue as leaking an open secret in an adventure story.
"Worse per capita" is just another way of saying the individual lives of Chinese students marching for their freedom was worth less than brainwashed cultists because there are more Chinese than Americans.
No, it's a way of saying that the number of people killed at Waco were a higher percentage of their country's population than the number of people killed at T. Square.
And since when does being "brainwashed" (i.e. believing something YOU don't) make someone's life less valuable? (But if it did I'm sure the Chinese government officials would have been happy to claim that the T. Square protesters had been brainwashed as well.)
I guess the students had a cache of modified semiautomatic weapons as well.
Given that:
a) members of the church had a LICENSE to make such modifications,
b) that the government didn't produce such a cache (though one of the things they DID produce and claim was a silencer turned out to be a spent incendiary teargas grenade of the type that they claimed they hadn't fired into the soon-to-burn building), and
c) the church members had less than half the guns per capita than the average for Texans I fail to see your point.
It was LEGAL for them to have what they had. It was MORAL, according to their religion, to have what they had and to use it to defend themselves against life-threatening attacks.
I also never heard they were holding people in their compound against their will.
I have never heard any evidence, or even serious allegations, that the Davidians were doing that, either. It appears that the only people holding anyone there against their will were the "jackbooted thugs" surrounding the community.
Let this be a reason for those who talk about "do no evil" and "Google" in same sentence (except me:) ), as if it is some person and not a corporation whose only thing they are looking for is more money for their shareholders.
Corporate executives have a legal duty to protect and promote the ineterests of their stockholders. By default this means their financial interests - which means they usually try to maximize profit within the limits of the law but not necessarily of morality.
But some corporations are founded by, or owned by, people with other interests than making money, and may put other considerations (such as social responsibility or religious law) ahead of profit.
Google was founded by people who claim to put "doing no evil" ahead of profit. And its stockholders (at least those among them who did their due diligence before buying) knew this. So it is reasonable to claim that its executives' duty to their stockholders includes a REQUIREMENT to put aside some profit opportunities if it must be done to avoid "doing evil".
This means they aren't stuck doing immoral things to maximize shareholder value. But it does NOT mean that they can break the laws of the countries in which they operate.
So they can decide to forgo profit and pull out of China if the laws force them to "do evil". And they can make this decision based on criteria like "Will more evil be done to the Chinese people by staying and censoring, or by leaving and letting others control even more of what they see?"
On the other hand, that's a LOT of profit to forgo. And it's pretty clear that putting more of it in the hands of the stockholders usually promotes their interests. So this is likely to bias the decisions even if they are honestly attempting to put the motto above the bottom line.
There are geometry problems: You get different results if you swivel your eyes and if you swivel your head.
But flat screens have the same issue. Hasn't stopped using them for 3-D. B-)
Since this is a single-user display you could use a head tracker to adjust the parallax depending on his head position, to avoid distortion, eyestrain, headaches, and barfogenisis. (This would not work for IMAX, because there are multiple viewers with distinct head positions.)
Of course with only a hemisphere viewscreen you could alternatively assume the viewer's head will be generally facing the screen center (to avoid breaking the illusion when looking to the side by bringing the screen boundary into view) and thus get away with a fixed parallax correction.
How do you know that they don't already have the keys to the aforementioned protocols?
This is spy stuff. You don't know. You just do the best you can with the technology available to you.
In this case you use the best encryption methods and protocols available in the public literature and hope that the open technologies' ability to obscure is keeping enough ahead of the investigative, intelligence, and criminal organizations' ability to crack. (Or at least slowing them down and raising the cost enough that, by the time they get around to breaking your stuff, it won't matter.)
As long as they don't have mysterious "fiber splices" into a sealed room, I'm in.
Use SSH, VPH, and other encrypted protocols to landline sites and bounce off proxies to anonymizer networks.
Geez. This is WIRELESS. NSA, FBI, SVR, MSS, Mosssad, Mafia, RIAA, etc. don't NEED splices - they can tap it from satellites or stations on the ground. (The only thing the "sealed room" option does is make it cheaper, easier, and guarantee full coverage.)
the Beast can have any [] number he wants. Hell, he can probably have two!
Why not?
If I can have two IPv4 class Cs and a/28 for a total of 520 (514 usable), the beast ought to be able to have at LEAST two.
Heck: With all the work he has to do and minions to help him, he could probably use a class A (16,777,216 numbers).
Given that Haliburton and the US Post Office each have one and the US DOD has eleven, maybe he already does. (There WERE internet postings from a computer in the DOD named "beast".) B-)
Packets from different types of flows require different handling to share the network bandwidth under congestion without unacceptable degradation.
A classic example is file transfer via FTP versus real-time audio streams (such as VoIP). Audio streams have a small and (depending on the codec) either limited or constant bandwidth requirement. But they are very sensitive to variations in transit time and to packet loss. FTP, on the other hand, can accept packet loss but has unlimited bandwidth. It will ramp its consumption up until it congests some hop in the network (which it DETECTS by observing packet loss). So if the packets are handled the same way, file transfers will drastically degrade audio streams.
The two can be made to share the network well by giving the stream packets priority in queueing (thus limiting variations in transit time and virtually eliminating packet loss) and perhaps compensating by enforcing a bandwidth limit (so other services, like file transfers, don't "cheat" by claiming to be VoIP streams in order to raise their speed - until they step on the real VoIP streams). The result is that the streams get good service on a small fraction of the network bandwidth while the file transfers (and similar services) divide the rest (the bulk of it) fairly.
But this requires treating different packets differently. Camel's nose in the tent...
Similarly, a telephone company sells some services where they must make service quality guarantees. For instance: connection-based voice. There are essentially three ways they can provide both these and Internet service:
1) Two separate networks - with separate equipment, lines/fibers, etc. 2) A single physical network split into two virtual networks by a bandwidth division (which is either fixed or changes occasionally). (Some examples: The DSL last-mile hop, packet services on T/E carriers or SONET tributaries multiplexed into higher-bandwidth bundles.) 3) A fully "converged" packet network, with the packets from the services for which they've written quality guarantees taking priority and the others splitting all the rest of the bandwidth.
From the company's side 1) is drastically more expensive to operate than 2) or 3), and 2) is considerably more expensive than 3). So competition drives the companies toward 3) - and drives out of business or into merger any that stay at the lower number. From the customer side the higher numbers can give better service for less money.
In particular: 3) is better for customers than 2). With 2) the unused bandwidth in the guaranteed-service partition is wasted. With 3) it the non-guaranteed, best-effort services get to use all the bandwidth that isn't currently being used for guaranteed services, on a moment-to-moment basis.
But to accomplish this the carrier must deliberately treat some of its OWN packets better than everybody else's. Another camel's nose...
These two examples are ways in which treating packets differently improve things for the customers relative to treating all packets the same. They are things that network neutrality legislation should NOT forbid.
But treating different packets differently can be misused by a carrier, to its own advantage and the detriment of its customers, in (at least) two ways:
a) It can treat its competition's packets different from its own in a non-benign way, to achieve a competitive advantage. This enables several monopolistic practices, all of which end up with the customers paying higher bills than otherwise.
b) It can delay the expense of upgrading its network by hobbling or disabling high-bandwidth services used by a subset of its customers or throttling a few of its customers that use higher bandwidths than others, in order to keep the more popular services working well for the bulk of the customers. This is a fraud - a failure to provide the advertised "Internet Service". It's also anticompetitive: It can lead to lower operating costs than a competitor who p
Analyzing who talks to whom is called "traffic analysis". It's often all the spooks need to figure out who their enemies are and take them out.
Yep, from the description you're dead on: By trying to limit traffic to trusted partners the "darknet" opens the user to traffic analysis. Apparently they were trying to hide the encrypted data - and in doing so broke both plausible deniability and the needle-in-a-haystack resistance to identification of communication partners.
... my main concern is "what if it escapes?". Considering that CO2 is heavier than Oxygen, I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within tens of km if not more) a site that stores thousands of tons of CO2.
CO2 has sometimes been pumped down oil wells to provide pressure to lift out more oil after the hole goes "dry" due to loss of natural gas pressure while there's still oil available.
On at least one occasion such a well has leaked, creating a large bubble of CO2 on the ground that displaced the air and caused human fatalities. (Not oil workers, either, but sleeping neighbors.)
... the entire moon accelerate at the 10g's or so it would take to press everyone to the floor without killing them, like it did in the first episode. I can presume, though, that it would be more likely to split the moon into pieces and rain death down upon the earth than accelerate it all in one piece...
The moon is not solid. Think of it as a bunch of pebbles, sand, and dust particles held together by their own gravity. Accelerate it at something even approaching its own surface gravity (assuming you could apply the force over a wide enough area to do it) and it comes apart into a gout of dirt and spreads out into a ring system.
This is what the Roche Limit is about: Orbit too close to a larger body and the tides are greater at the surface than the gravity. So the rocks just float away and the whole body breaks up and smears out along the mean orbit, forming a ring system.
(Artificial satellites, like the individual particles in a ring, can orbit closer to the primary than the Roche Limit because they are solid objects that can accept tension loads from tides.)
This is standard procedure with any new law or interpretation:
- First go after some little guy (a disgusting one if possible) and get the precedent established.
- Then use the precedent to go after the guys with deep pockets.
That way you get an easy victory against a week defense by a defendant for whom the judge and/or jury will have no sympathy. Then the guys with money to be taken have a much harder time defending themselves against the well-tempered legal weapon.
There's a far side of the moon, but if nuclear fuel dumps exploded there it would drive the moon straight at the earth.
Which would make it miss. (Basic orbital dynamics.)
To make it hit you'd have to "explode" the nuclear fuel dumps on the side leading in the orbit, to decelerate it into an impacting orbit.
It would also take LOTS of nuclear fuel dumps over a VERY LONG TIME. B-)
Nuclear bombs are big on human scales. But they're firecrackers compared to an earthquake, and an earthquake is not even in the league of orbital dynamics. A rock a few miles across falling from lunar orbit outclasses any bomb ever made by humans. But we're talking about enough energy to deorbit the entire MOON - which is also about enough to lift it from the Earth's surface to orbital altitude or about half the amount needed to lift it from the earth's surface into a stable circular orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and their sympathizers have claimed that the main reason it's the big victim of malware is that it is the big target, and that if other OSes were as widely deployed they'd be as riddled. Linux, BSD, Firefox, Apache, and other FOSS projects claim that it mainly Microsoft's poor security, not just the monoculture providing a big target.
Now we have million motherboards a month shipping with an identical OS - including a network stack and a browser - in the BIOS. Heavily used in this mode by the purchasers. If this is successfully suborned by malware it can romp all over the hard drive, even if the main system install isn't booted.
Seems to me this is a showdown between the Microsoft and FOSS sides' claims. B-)
Do you want a map which does not show what your country (and hopefully you) thinks, but instead shows what China wants to show?
I'm quite used to maps that show what the map company or some government wants them to show. (Maps of Germany, for instance, often showed a number of historic borders - keeping alive the idea that "this place really is part of Germany but we got kicked out of it in some war" for future generations. Map companies often distort roadmap geometry to make topological connections clearer. They also insert fictitious towns in remote places to catch competitors who copy their work rather than going to primary sources - something that can be life threatening for travelers in a remote region such as the US southwestern deserts, etc.)
I'm sure that Google's management is capable of considering things like how big the Taiwan market is, what effect showing it as part of China would have on customer usage (and ad revenue) both there and in other places (such as the US market), how to feed different maps to different regions, and so on.
Just need to make it powerful enough to climb aswell, as it is now it can only prolong your fall.
It's there now.
It appears that this one was more than powerful enough to climb. He could have proved it by climbing back up and overflying his starting point (if he had enough fuel). Instead he just used it to fly level until he ran out of fuel. That says he had at least as much thrust as drag, which effectively means he had thrust to spare for climbing (since these things never match exactly).
Notice how rapidly he builds up speed and vanishes into the distance. You can easily trade that velocity for altitude just by pulling up slightly - then level out and build more if you trade it away faster than the jets replenish it.
Strong adversity to an idea exerts a selective pressure. Much as the harsh and competitive environment of Africa did spawn the most successful mammals, so too might slashdot spawn successful technologies.
Or at least help evolve PR statements to promote the investment and sales necessary to turn a functionally successful technology into a marketplace success. B-)
Maybe he's not interested in "solving real problems" but making a fun toy. If you want to "advance society" knock yourself out but don't try to force everyone else to do things your way.
But making everyone else do things their way is how people who claim to be "advancing society" have their fun: using the rest of us as their toys.
And they consider it necessary. After all, "society" is everybody (except when it's "everybody but YOU"). To "advance" it they have to change the behavior of its members. Of course they change it to be more in line with what they consider "advanced".
If the poor, benighted people were happy doing things in a "less advanced" but more self-directed way, tough!
Dudes: If it flies it requires FAA certification. You may return to your crack pipes now.
If you had read the fine article you'd have seen that there were two major components to the answer for "Why now when it has always before been infeasible?":
1) New materials make it technically feasible.
2) New FAA regulations, creating a new class of aircraft (Light Sport) that's drastically easier to certify, makes it bureaucratically feasible.
I believe 2) completely answers your objection.
But thank you for playing.
If China is so determined to regulate what goes into the maps then just remove them. That way they can't complain about it. Just leave a blank area with a not available on picture day caption.
An old tradition for unmapped, hard to get to, areas was to label them with rumors, like "Here there be Dragons". Cartographer-speak for "This page intentionally left blank."
Given China's traditions about dragons it seems appropriate.
(Unfortunately, they might like it.)
It was actually a little bit exciting to see the map in Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger, showing the United States Bullion Depository located at the intersection of Bullion Boulevard and Gold Vault Road. In those days before Wikipedia and Google Earth, this gave at least one reader frisson of forbidden information. I wondered whether Fleming would be the target of any mysterious reprisals for publishing it.
Given that Fleming (along with Eric Frank Russel) was in the British Military Intelligence during WWII and loosely based his fiction on his experiences there, I doubt that the US spook community would take reprisals against such an honored member of their fraternity (and potentially create a major international incident) over such a minor issue as leaking an open secret in an adventure story.
"Worse per capita" is just another way of saying the individual lives of Chinese students marching for their freedom was worth less than brainwashed cultists because there are more Chinese than Americans.
No, it's a way of saying that the number of people killed at Waco were a higher percentage of their country's population than the number of people killed at T. Square.
And since when does being "brainwashed" (i.e. believing something YOU don't) make someone's life less valuable? (But if it did I'm sure the Chinese government officials would have been happy to claim that the T. Square protesters had been brainwashed as well.)
I guess the students had a cache of modified semiautomatic weapons as well.
Given that:
a) members of the church had a LICENSE to make such modifications,
b) that the government didn't produce such a cache (though one of the things they DID produce and claim was a silencer turned out to be a spent incendiary teargas grenade of the type that they claimed they hadn't fired into the soon-to-burn building), and
c) the church members had less than half the guns per capita than the average for Texans
I fail to see your point.
It was LEGAL for them to have what they had.
It was MORAL, according to their religion, to have what they had and to use it to defend themselves against life-threatening attacks.
I also never heard they were holding people in their compound against their will.
I have never heard any evidence, or even serious allegations, that the Davidians were doing that, either. It appears that the only people holding anyone there against their will were the "jackbooted thugs" surrounding the community.
Let this be a reason for those who talk about "do no evil" and "Google" in same sentence (except me :) ), as if it is some person and not a corporation whose only thing they are looking for is more money for their shareholders.
Corporate executives have a legal duty to protect and promote the ineterests of their stockholders. By default this means their financial interests - which means they usually try to maximize profit within the limits of the law but not necessarily of morality.
But some corporations are founded by, or owned by, people with other interests than making money, and may put other considerations (such as social responsibility or religious law) ahead of profit.
Google was founded by people who claim to put "doing no evil" ahead of profit. And its stockholders (at least those among them who did their due diligence before buying) knew this. So it is reasonable to claim that its executives' duty to their stockholders includes a REQUIREMENT to put aside some profit opportunities if it must be done to avoid "doing evil".
This means they aren't stuck doing immoral things to maximize shareholder value. But it does NOT mean that they can break the laws of the countries in which they operate.
So they can decide to forgo profit and pull out of China if the laws force them to "do evil". And they can make this decision based on criteria like "Will more evil be done to the Chinese people by staying and censoring, or by leaving and letting others control even more of what they see?"
On the other hand, that's a LOT of profit to forgo. And it's pretty clear that putting more of it in the hands of the stockholders usually promotes their interests. So this is likely to bias the decisions even if they are honestly attempting to put the motto above the bottom line.
There are geometry problems: You get different results if you swivel your eyes and if you swivel your head.
But flat screens have the same issue. Hasn't stopped using them for 3-D. B-)
Since this is a single-user display you could use a head tracker to adjust the parallax depending on his head position, to avoid distortion, eyestrain, headaches, and barfogenisis. (This would not work for IMAX, because there are multiple viewers with distinct head positions.)
Of course with only a hemisphere viewscreen you could alternatively assume the viewer's head will be generally facing the screen center (to avoid breaking the illusion when looking to the side by bringing the screen boundary into view) and thus get away with a fixed parallax correction.
(It makes them much better targets.)
It's impossible to get a 3D stereo setup with a non-planar display like this.
Polarized projectors and glasses works just fine on a curved surface. (Computation's a tad different, but so what?
So the shuttle goes boom boom?
It goes "ba-boom". The two booms are far enough to be perceived as distinct but still close enough together to be one event.
Now if it knocks over something metallic it goes "ba-boom, CHING!"
(Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week...)
How do you know that they don't already have the keys to the aforementioned protocols?
This is spy stuff. You don't know. You just do the best you can with the technology available to you.
In this case you use the best encryption methods and protocols available in the public literature and hope that the open technologies' ability to obscure is keeping enough ahead of the investigative, intelligence, and criminal organizations' ability to crack. (Or at least slowing them down and raising the cost enough that, by the time they get around to breaking your stuff, it won't matter.)
As long as they don't have mysterious "fiber splices" into a sealed room, I'm in.
Use SSH, VPH, and other encrypted protocols to landline sites and bounce off proxies to anonymizer networks.
Geez. This is WIRELESS. NSA, FBI, SVR, MSS, Mosssad, Mafia, RIAA, etc. don't NEED splices - they can tap it from satellites or stations on the ground. (The only thing the "sealed room" option does is make it cheaper, easier, and guarantee full coverage.)
the Beast can have any [] number he wants.
/28 for a total of 520 (514 usable), the beast ought to be able to have at LEAST two.
Hell, he can probably have two!
Why not?
If I can have two IPv4 class Cs and a
Heck: With all the work he has to do and minions to help him, he could probably use a class A (16,777,216 numbers).
Given that Haliburton and the US Post Office each have one and the US DOD has eleven, maybe he already does. (There WERE internet postings from a computer in the DOD named "beast".) B-)
Packets from different types of flows require different handling to share the network bandwidth under congestion without unacceptable degradation.
A classic example is file transfer via FTP versus real-time audio streams (such as VoIP). Audio streams have a small and (depending on the codec) either limited or constant bandwidth requirement. But they are very sensitive to variations in transit time and to packet loss. FTP, on the other hand, can accept packet loss but has unlimited bandwidth. It will ramp its consumption up until it congests some hop in the network (which it DETECTS by observing packet loss). So if the packets are handled the same way, file transfers will drastically degrade audio streams.
The two can be made to share the network well by giving the stream packets priority in queueing (thus limiting variations in transit time and virtually eliminating packet loss) and perhaps compensating by enforcing a bandwidth limit (so other services, like file transfers, don't "cheat" by claiming to be VoIP streams in order to raise their speed - until they step on the real VoIP streams). The result is that the streams get good service on a small fraction of the network bandwidth while the file transfers (and similar services) divide the rest (the bulk of it) fairly.
But this requires treating different packets differently. Camel's nose in the tent...
Similarly, a telephone company sells some services where they must make service quality guarantees. For instance: connection-based voice. There are essentially three ways they can provide both these and Internet service:
1) Two separate networks - with separate equipment, lines/fibers, etc.
2) A single physical network split into two virtual networks by a bandwidth division (which is either fixed or changes occasionally). (Some examples: The DSL last-mile hop, packet services on T/E carriers or SONET tributaries multiplexed into higher-bandwidth bundles.)
3) A fully "converged" packet network, with the packets from the services for which they've written quality guarantees taking priority and the others splitting all the rest of the bandwidth.
From the company's side 1) is drastically more expensive to operate than 2) or 3), and 2) is considerably more expensive than 3). So competition drives the companies toward 3) - and drives out of business or into merger any that stay at the lower number. From the customer side the higher numbers can give better service for less money.
In particular: 3) is better for customers than 2). With 2) the unused bandwidth in the guaranteed-service partition is wasted. With 3) it the non-guaranteed, best-effort services get to use all the bandwidth that isn't currently being used for guaranteed services, on a moment-to-moment basis.
But to accomplish this the carrier must deliberately treat some of its OWN packets better than everybody else's. Another camel's nose...
These two examples are ways in which treating packets differently improve things for the customers relative to treating all packets the same. They are things that network neutrality legislation should NOT forbid.
But treating different packets differently can be misused by a carrier, to its own advantage and the detriment of its customers, in (at least) two ways:
a) It can treat its competition's packets different from its own in a non-benign way, to achieve a competitive advantage. This enables several monopolistic practices, all of which end up with the customers paying higher bills than otherwise.
b) It can delay the expense of upgrading its network by hobbling or disabling high-bandwidth services used by a subset of its customers or throttling a few of its customers that use higher bandwidths than others, in order to keep the more popular services working well for the bulk of the customers. This is a fraud - a failure to provide the advertised "Internet Service". It's also anticompetitive: It can lead to lower operating costs than a competitor who p
Analyzing who talks to whom is called "traffic analysis". It's often all the spooks need to figure out who their enemies are and take them out.
Yep, from the description you're dead on: By trying to limit traffic to trusted partners the "darknet" opens the user to traffic analysis. Apparently they were trying to hide the encrypted data - and in doing so broke both plausible deniability and the needle-in-a-haystack resistance to identification of communication partners.
... because it was uploaded via freenet?
No.
It's because the previous article was the release candidate and the official release came out today.
Sorry. Saw that a LONG time ago (Pre-WWW) as a little item in a newspaper back page. Don't even remember the decade at this point. B-(
... my main concern is "what if it escapes?". Considering that CO2 is heavier than Oxygen, I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within tens of km if not more) a site that stores thousands of tons of CO2.
CO2 has sometimes been pumped down oil wells to provide pressure to lift out more oil after the hole goes "dry" due to loss of natural gas pressure while there's still oil available.
On at least one occasion such a well has leaked, creating a large bubble of CO2 on the ground that displaced the air and caused human fatalities. (Not oil workers, either, but sleeping neighbors.)
... the entire moon accelerate at the 10g's or so it would take to press everyone to the floor without killing them, like it did in the first episode. I can presume, though, that it would be more likely to split the moon into pieces and rain death down upon the earth than accelerate it all in one piece ...
The moon is not solid. Think of it as a bunch of pebbles, sand, and dust particles held together by their own gravity. Accelerate it at something even approaching its own surface gravity (assuming you could apply the force over a wide enough area to do it) and it comes apart into a gout of dirt and spreads out into a ring system.
This is what the Roche Limit is about: Orbit too close to a larger body and the tides are greater at the surface than the gravity. So the rocks just float away and the whole body breaks up and smears out along the mean orbit, forming a ring system.
(Artificial satellites, like the individual particles in a ring, can orbit closer to the primary than the Roche Limit because they are solid objects that can accept tension loads from tides.)
Is the MAFIAA going to sue Google?
Why not?
This is standard procedure with any new law or interpretation:
- First go after some little guy (a disgusting one if possible) and get the precedent established.
- Then use the precedent to go after the guys with deep pockets.
That way you get an easy victory against a week defense by a defendant for whom the judge and/or jury will have no sympathy. Then the guys with money to be taken have a much harder time defending themselves against the well-tempered legal weapon.
There's a far side of the moon, but if nuclear fuel dumps exploded there it would drive the moon straight at the earth.
Which would make it miss. (Basic orbital dynamics.)
To make it hit you'd have to "explode" the nuclear fuel dumps on the side leading in the orbit, to decelerate it into an impacting orbit.
It would also take LOTS of nuclear fuel dumps over a VERY LONG TIME. B-)
Nuclear bombs are big on human scales. But they're firecrackers compared to an earthquake, and an earthquake is not even in the league of orbital dynamics. A rock a few miles across falling from lunar orbit outclasses any bomb ever made by humans. But we're talking about enough energy to deorbit the entire MOON - which is also about enough to lift it from the Earth's surface to orbital altitude or about half the amount needed to lift it from the earth's surface into a stable circular orbit.