but the most important alterations are purely in how the animal has been raised.
The link you pointed to refutes your point. The difference in the foxes' behavior was entirely due to selective breeding, not how they were raised. The scientists showed that if fox cubs that were bred for aggression were placed with a non-aggressive foster mother, they were still highly aggressive and also vice-versa.
This law gives the government the power to order ISPs to do this, and to order any UK certificate authorities to co-operate. Oh, and this can be done secretly, with only a couple of government thingamies needing to be consulted.
That requires the people in government to have a clue. Possible, but unlikely. Anyway, if they go so far as to target you by setting up a man-in-the middle attack like this, you probably have bigger things to worry about.
Second: Turn off remote root login, typically found in sshd_config. This'll stop much of the probing.
Instead of disallowing root logins, turn off password-based authentication and use certificates instead. Also move your ssh port from 22 to a high unused port. Then install fail2ban (as the parent post suggested) or a set of iptables rules to ban excessive ssh connections.
Seventh: Read your log files regularly. auth.log, error.log are very informative ones. Doing a lastlog command on a regular basis helps.
Install logwatch and have it filter out much of the harmless information in the logs and report the interesting stuff to you.
Currently they store the from and to addresses of all emails sent, as well as the subject line, date stamp and IP address of the machine connecting to the server (usually your router, but not always). Encryption makes no difference as you can't encrypt the headers since obviously the server needs to read them.
SMTP-TLS plus using an offshore server and the ISP will only know that you may have sent an email, but to whom it was sent and the contents will be completely unknown (unless the ISPs start doing man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL traffic).
Microsoft is not late. Microsoft has failed to execute. How long has Microsoft been in the phone software business? Pocket PC 2002 was available for phones in 2001.That's 11 years of failure to execute. In no way is Microsoft late. Instead what has happened is that Microsoft has failed to find a way to leverage its existing monopolies into the phone space.
maybe someone played a joke on you. get this in your head: in signal reception, NOKIA ALWAYS WINS. especially against motorola
Maybe in recent years, but not in the mid nineties. Around that time, my wife had a similar (Motorola) phone and went on a bus trip with some friends. At one point in the trip, she was the only person with reception.
Nokia used to create great products and be a byword for quality, reliable, cutting edge phones.
I have read this often on/., but my experince does not agree.
I bought my first cellphone in 1996. It was a Motorola GSM phone. Shortly after I bought it, my boss and I were both in a meeting with limited signla strength. My Mototola phone could get a signal, his Nokia did not. We had the same choice of networks (both were roaming).
More recently, I bought several Nokia 6086 phones. All of them suffered from: occasional rapid batttery discharge (the phone would get hot, run the battery down and battery life would be very short for the next few charges until the battery recovered). The phones also suffered from what I called the "message of death". Some MMS messages would cause the phone to shutdown and (usually) reboot. The phone would cycle through this until (I think) the server decided not to deliver the problematic message. Then, finally, the music player. Yes, this model claimed to play music, but: 1. It could only play one mp3 file at a time -- there did not seem to be a way to get it to play multiple files, 2. It claimed to only play through headphones and not through the speaker, but if you started playing through the headphones and then disconnected them, the music would come out of the speaker. Clearly, the ability to play music was a "checkbox feature" (a feature that is there just to complete a comparison chart, but works so badly that people won't actually use it). Why did I keep buying Nokia 6086 phones? For a while it was about the only non-Blackberry phone that supported T-Mobile's WiFi calling feature.
Although we assume that intelligence is a buffer against biasâ"thatâ(TM)s why those with higher S.A.T. scores think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakesâ"it can actually be a subtle curse.
Or perhaps high SAT scores do not correlate well with intelligence, but rather correlate with being able to answer questions quickly through the use of mental shortcuts or the ability to recall what was learned through rote learning?
She pointed out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has repeatedly found that the collection program is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
Secret court decides that its reason to exist is legal..... news at 11:00
What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras.
My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
Hate to break it to you but really Windows itself is pretty good security wise these days.
A fully patched Windows system may be secure, but there are many reasons why a Windows system will not be fully patched. For example, a new system requires many times of running updates before it is fully updated (unless the user forces windows update to re-run several times, which is unlikely). This means days before the system is updated. Then there is 3rd party software with its own updaters, which don't acutally work if the logged-in user is not an administrator. There are probably other reasons that a Windows system may not be fully patched. Yes, the 3rd party software may not be "Microsoft's fault", but it is part of the WIndows ecosystem.
On the other hand, most Linux updates come from a single source that and use signed packages. Furthermore, every Linux distribution that I have used is able to install 100% of the updates in a single pass.
If Hollywood had succeeeded in outlawing VCRs, they'd all be a lot poorer.
I am going against conventional wisdom, but what if Sony had lost the crucial case, but then gone on to produce a VCPlayer? There might have been a chicken-and-egg problem -- without the content (recording OTA broadcasts), there would be no reason to buy such a player and without a maket for the cassettes, there would be no reason to offer the content on cassettes.
The counter example is the DVD player, which did not have the same existing content (recording OTA) when launched, but has been successful as a play-only device.
One further example is the laserdisk, which was not really successful.
Overall, I don't think that things are so clear-cut as often portrayed.
Maybe the market just doesn't value musicians that highly -- maybe their talents just are not so unique in most cases that they deserve to make much money. From the article:
Seattle's Grunge Bubble. Historically the companies that tried to be selective, pick the stars were no more successful than the companies that were not selective.
So those companies who tried to find the best artists made no more than those who signed anyone. Perhaps the successful artists are not successful because of any extra talent, but rather because of the support they received. Perhaps the "new boss" just makes this lack of special talent more obvious!
The people who bought the shares at their opening value obviously thought they were worth it, otherwise they should not have bought them at that price. They took a gamble and lost!
The stock market is like a casino where the odds favor the customers. Overall, investors on the stock market make money, however, some investors will lose money.
In this case, however, the decks were stacked against the small guy. Some people had inside information that Facebook's financials were not likely to be as good as the rosy projections that were made public. That stinks and, until a lot of bankers and analysts go to jail for such actions, it won't stop (a tiny number of people are prosecuted, most pay a fine that is broadly the same as their gains, so no real loss and an even smaller number of people go to jail -- but the number is too small to make individuals think there is a realistic chance of them going to jail for inside trading).
When discussing a case that includes both the UK and the USA. make it clear where the cities are located. Not only are there probably many cities called "London" in the USA, but more importantly, there is at least one "Boston" in the UK.
What a lot of people (including you) don't seem to understand is that the damage is not loss of a single copy or a single sale, it is loss of the exclusive right to distribute. Since it is impossible to determine the value of that right, an amount was set by statute.
He did not rip the CD and make the first upload, thus, he was not the person who was responsible for the loss of the exclusive right. Once that first upload was done, the exclusive right was lost. On the other hand, if he wasn't the first person to upload a rip, should he be responsible for the uploads and proliferation done by others who may have downloaded from him?
This whole case is about whether the amount of damages are unreasonably high. Since all that can really be counted is his one download of each song, are the statuory damages excessive?
As far as I can tell, he admitted to uploading, but not how many times each file was uploaded. I really doubt that the record shows anything related his uploading his activity except for his admission of an indeterminate number of uploads.
And in fact, Neeson did it again during the trial, placing all of the songs on a website for free download
How are the actions of his lawyer related to his liability?
And unfortunately, that argument misses half of the infringement. You're right, Mr. T could have downloaded a track for $1. But he also was uploading copies.
You suppose that he uploaded it multiple times. What evidence exists to prove this? Without such evidence, the uploading damages should be zero.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY
The link you pointed to refutes your point. The difference in the foxes' behavior was entirely due to selective breeding, not how they were raised. The scientists showed that if fox cubs that were bred for aggression were placed with a non-aggressive foster mother, they were still highly aggressive and also vice-versa.
That requires the people in government to have a clue. Possible, but unlikely. Anyway, if they go so far as to target you by setting up a man-in-the middle attack like this, you probably have bigger things to worry about.
Instead of disallowing root logins, turn off password-based authentication and use certificates instead. Also move your ssh port from 22 to a high unused port. Then install fail2ban (as the parent post suggested) or a set of iptables rules to ban excessive ssh connections.
Install logwatch and have it filter out much of the harmless information in the logs and report the interesting stuff to you.
Where did you find a static version of 4.0?
SMTP-TLS plus using an offshore server and the ISP will only know that you may have sent an email, but to whom it was sent and the contents will be completely unknown (unless the ISPs start doing man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL traffic).
Microsoft is not late. Microsoft has failed to execute. How long has Microsoft been in the phone software business? Pocket PC 2002 was available for phones in 2001.That's 11 years of failure to execute. In no way is Microsoft late. Instead what has happened is that Microsoft has failed to find a way to leverage its existing monopolies into the phone space.
Maybe in recent years, but not in the mid nineties. Around that time, my wife had a similar (Motorola) phone and went on a bus trip with some friends. At one point in the trip, she was the only person with reception.
They have? I will update my XP box to IE8 then....
I have read this often on /., but my experince does not agree.
I bought my first cellphone in 1996. It was a Motorola GSM phone. Shortly after I bought it, my boss and I were both in a meeting with limited signla strength. My Mototola phone could get a signal, his Nokia did not. We had the same choice of networks (both were roaming).
More recently, I bought several Nokia 6086 phones. All of them suffered from: occasional rapid batttery discharge (the phone would get hot, run the battery down and battery life would be very short for the next few charges until the battery recovered). The phones also suffered from what I called the "message of death". Some MMS messages would cause the phone to shutdown and (usually) reboot. The phone would cycle through this until (I think) the server decided not to deliver the problematic message. Then, finally, the music player. Yes, this model claimed to play music, but: 1. It could only play one mp3 file at a time -- there did not seem to be a way to get it to play multiple files, 2. It claimed to only play through headphones and not through the speaker, but if you started playing through the headphones and then disconnected them, the music would come out of the speaker. Clearly, the ability to play music was a "checkbox feature" (a feature that is there just to complete a comparison chart, but works so badly that people won't actually use it). Why did I keep buying Nokia 6086 phones? For a while it was about the only non-Blackberry phone that supported T-Mobile's WiFi calling feature.
Or perhaps high SAT scores do not correlate well with intelligence, but rather correlate with being able to answer questions quickly through the use of mental shortcuts or the ability to recall what was learned through rote learning?
He should register copyright on his new comics, wait for them to appear on Funnyjunk, then use the donations to sue for $140k per infringement.
Like, uh.. the United Kingdom (7/7) or Spain, or, pretty much any large country in Western Europe.
Secret court decides that its reason to exist is legal..... news at 11:00
My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
I have seen the time on virtual machines hopping around -- even those that are running ntpd.
A fully patched Windows system may be secure, but there are many reasons why a Windows system will not be fully patched. For example, a new system requires many times of running updates before it is fully updated (unless the user forces windows update to re-run several times, which is unlikely). This means days before the system is updated. Then there is 3rd party software with its own updaters, which don't acutally work if the logged-in user is not an administrator. There are probably other reasons that a Windows system may not be fully patched. Yes, the 3rd party software may not be "Microsoft's fault", but it is part of the WIndows ecosystem.
On the other hand, most Linux updates come from a single source that and use signed packages. Furthermore, every Linux distribution that I have used is able to install 100% of the updates in a single pass.
Admit it, you have been watching "Hot Fuzz" haven't you?
I am going against conventional wisdom, but what if Sony had lost the crucial case, but then gone on to produce a VCPlayer? There might have been a chicken-and-egg problem -- without the content (recording OTA broadcasts), there would be no reason to buy such a player and without a maket for the cassettes, there would be no reason to offer the content on cassettes.
The counter example is the DVD player, which did not have the same existing content (recording OTA) when launched, but has been successful as a play-only device.
One further example is the laserdisk, which was not really successful.
Overall, I don't think that things are so clear-cut as often portrayed.
So those companies who tried to find the best artists made no more than those who signed anyone. Perhaps the successful artists are not successful because of any extra talent, but rather because of the support they received. Perhaps the "new boss" just makes this lack of special talent more obvious!
The stock market is like a casino where the odds favor the customers. Overall, investors on the stock market make money, however, some investors will lose money.
In this case, however, the decks were stacked against the small guy. Some people had inside information that Facebook's financials were not likely to be as good as the rosy projections that were made public. That stinks and, until a lot of bankers and analysts go to jail for such actions, it won't stop (a tiny number of people are prosecuted, most pay a fine that is broadly the same as their gains, so no real loss and an even smaller number of people go to jail -- but the number is too small to make individuals think there is a realistic chance of them going to jail for inside trading).
When discussing a case that includes both the UK and the USA. make it clear where the cities are located. Not only are there probably many cities called "London" in the USA, but more importantly, there is at least one "Boston" in the UK.
He did not rip the CD and make the first upload, thus, he was not the person who was responsible for the loss of the exclusive right. Once that first upload was done, the exclusive right was lost. On the other hand, if he wasn't the first person to upload a rip, should he be responsible for the uploads and proliferation done by others who may have downloaded from him?
This whole case is about whether the amount of damages are unreasonably high. Since all that can really be counted is his one download of each song, are the statuory damages excessive?
As far as I can tell, he admitted to uploading, but not how many times each file was uploaded. I really doubt that the record shows anything related his uploading his activity except for his admission of an indeterminate number of uploads.
How are the actions of his lawyer related to his liability?
You suppose that he uploaded it multiple times. What evidence exists to prove this? Without such evidence, the uploading damages should be zero.