IMHO, this sounds very (too) low. He has to have some kind of flyback converter generating somewhere from 1kV to 8kV (from the article), and my guess is that it is at the higher end of that range. Now, in order to make this anywhere near safe, it probably has to be designed with semi-insulators rather than insulators (don't want people getting shocks after it is turned off), so even if the corona discharge has minimal current, the losses will be significant. Also, the flyback converter is probably not going to be very efficient, given a low input voltage (mobile and ultra-mobile products).
I figured that'd be a source of confusion, which is why I mentioned that you can be nailed for non-compliance of local laws even if you're simply importing items (such as cars in my example).
Let me suggest that you look up the word "import". It's difficult, no, impossible to "import" unless you have a presence in the country. Otherwise it is called "exporting".
If Ford had no presence in Germany, then there would be no German law that would apply to Ford's exporting of cars to Germany. However, the recipient may well be in trouble if the cars did not meet German specs. Also the cars would likely be stopped at Customs, but this does not create a legal liability for Ford US, unless there is a US law (such a a trade agreement) that Ford US was in violation of.
You remember how Amazon and ebay have gotten nailed for selling Nazi-related stuff in Germany? Amazon and ebay are US-based companies; yet they didn't try the "we are operating under US law" trick. The point is that they were doing business in Germany and (at least according to Germany) broke German law.
Where was it that you missed the fact that these companies have offices and employees in those Germany amd a.de domain name? The German operations of eBay and Amazon were vulnerable to being prosecuted in Germany.
If I read this correctly, it requires the enclosure to heat up, since the clock oscillator is on the motherboard, not on the CPU. Thus, randomising fan speeds would have the same effect.
Even if the clock oscillator were part of the CPU package, adding some random variation to the CPU cooler fan speed would defeat this.
Basically, reformatting the drive is a perfectly legitimate thing to do when Windows, or any operating system, becomes "unusable" due to corruption of system files by malicious software.
But re-formatting does not overwrite data -- it just marks the sectors as unused. Thus, forensic methods can be used to detect the presence of (and recover) fragments or complete files that were on the disk prior to re-formatting.
IP address assignment varies by ISP and also within ISPs, but my experience is that if I disconnect my PC from the cable modem and connect a different computer to the same modem, it will get a different IP address.
Thus, the idea that the disk is from a different computer that had the same IP address is unlikely, at least with my ISP.
* How do you prove that the contents of the "shared" folder were actually shared with third parties? (I have a "shared" folder with music on my PC, to stream to my other PCs and my stereo)
This raises an interesting question: how do you prove that the listed files could actually be shared and that technical means (such as a firewall) were not preventing sharing, while still allowing the listing of files?
When I first started using email, it was only within the company's WAN. Most people had exactly the same model of printer, so I figured out how to embed printer control characters into emails to make parts appear bold or in italics when printed (most employees printed out their email to read it at that time)
Your comments on click fraud are interesting. My own company's website saw hits that were very odd from google adwords clicks. I searched the weblogs looking for IP addresses that had a referrer that indicated an adwords click, but only downloaded one or two files. Given that the front page is composed of many files, it is not typicalof a readl browser to only download one or two files.
Many of these referrers tracked back to websites that had no discernable connection to our products -- in fact some were merely link farms or "search engines" running at domains that the former owner had allowed to expire.
Surely that doesn't matter. Whether the source port is rewritten or not external services will still try to respond to that port and the firewall will have to deal with that for things like DNS to work.
The key word here is respond. Yes, if a DNS query is sent out with the source port re-writeen, the DNS server replies with the source and destiantion reversed (what was the source is now the destination). The MASQ firewall, when receiving this packet will match the destination port in the reply with its table of connections and know that it has to re-write the packet again and send it to its internal client. Note that some simple NAT routers have much simpler matching rules
However, in the case described, there is no reply. The remote system attempts to fake a reply, but since it did not receive an actual outgoing packet, it can't know to what destination port to send. This is only a problem with sophisticated NAT/MASQ implementations, such as is found in the Linux kernel.
OK, some Googling shows that there is a concept of port preservation, in which the NAT router attempts to preserve the source port. In this case the system described will work for small numbers of clients (ie. when the NAT router is able to use the same source port numbers), but if there are sufficient clients and sufficient connections, the NAT router will have to re-write the source port and then the firewall won't recognise the incoming packet as belonging to an existing connection.
The kernel firewall knows how to MASQ udp packets; There's a timeout associated with them. So if you get a random UDP packet that it doesn't have a matching connection for, it'll drop it.
Which brings up an interesting question: the article talks about destination port numbers, but does not discuss source port numbers.
Surely, iptables/netfilter also requires source ports to match? This is important, since the MASQ/NAT firewall can rewrite source port numbers, and hence the central server cannot reliably pass this information to the clients (since neither the clients nor the central server can reliably know the source port of the UDP packets after they are re-written by the NAT/MASQ firewall).
I think Y!'s latest re-design has emphasized form over function. It looks like the original founder's vision has been lost, to PHBs who think pages should look pretty.
I don't understand why anyone would think that this new, more busy, interface is better, given Google's success with their sparse layout.
I know that I have changed my home page from Yahoo to Google as a result of the re-design. I also know that many people reading the financial boards have moved to other venues.
So, running an illegal monopoly is OK, but getting money by other illegal methods is not? That's a distinction without a difference. Where do you draw the line? Is fraud OK, or do weapons have to be involved for you to condemn it?
Did someone force you to buy a computer? No, you willingly departed with your money in exchange for a computer. Despite the way we behave around here computers are still, in fact, not a necessity of life.
For many (or perhpas now, most) businesses, computers are necessary for life.
Besides which, your argument is ridiculous: just because something is not absolutely necessary to live does not mean that it is not a monopoly that people effectively have to buy. For example: gasolene is not a necessity of life, yet how many people in the US could get buy without buying it? Let's go a bit further: are clothes a necessity of life? Probably not in summer for large parts of the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Save Changes
Discard Changes
This article has more information and clearly lays out that it is disks, burners, etc. "upgraded" to burn CSS
If Ford had no presence in Germany, then there would be no German law that would apply to Ford's exporting of cars to Germany. However, the recipient may well be in trouble if the cars did not meet German specs. Also the cars would likely be stopped at Customs, but this does not create a legal liability for Ford US, unless there is a US law (such a a trade agreement) that Ford US was in violation of.
If I read this correctly, it requires the enclosure to heat up, since the clock oscillator is on the motherboard, not on the CPU. Thus, randomising fan speeds would have the same effect.
Even if the clock oscillator were part of the CPU package, adding some random variation to the CPU cooler fan speed would defeat this.
Thus, the idea that the disk is from a different computer that had the same IP address is unlikely, at least with my ISP.
When I first started using email, it was only within the company's WAN. Most people had exactly the same model of printer, so I figured out how to embed printer control characters into emails to make parts appear bold or in italics when printed (most employees printed out their email to read it at that time)
Your comments on click fraud are interesting. My own company's website saw hits that were very odd from google adwords clicks. I searched the weblogs looking for IP addresses that had a referrer that indicated an adwords click, but only downloaded one or two files. Given that the front page is composed of many files, it is not typicalof a readl browser to only download one or two files.
Many of these referrers tracked back to websites that had no discernable connection to our products -- in fact some were merely link farms or "search engines" running at domains that the former owner had allowed to expire.
Given Y!'s recent re-design, I an unsurprised. I used to have Y! as my home page, now it's Google news.
IMHO, Yahoo has made the fatal mistake of over-emphasizing form over function and is now suffering the result.
However, in the case described, there is no reply. The remote system attempts to fake a reply, but since it did not receive an actual outgoing packet, it can't know to what destination port to send. This is only a problem with sophisticated NAT/MASQ implementations, such as is found in the Linux kernel.
OK, some Googling shows that there is a concept of port preservation, in which the NAT router attempts to preserve the source port. In this case the system described will work for small numbers of clients (ie. when the NAT router is able to use the same source port numbers), but if there are sufficient clients and sufficient connections, the NAT router will have to re-write the source port and then the firewall won't recognise the incoming packet as belonging to an existing connection.
Surely, iptables/netfilter also requires source ports to match? This is important, since the MASQ/NAT firewall can rewrite source port numbers, and hence the central server cannot reliably pass this information to the clients (since neither the clients nor the central server can reliably know the source port of the UDP packets after they are re-written by the NAT/MASQ firewall).
I think Y!'s latest re-design has emphasized form over function. It looks like the original founder's vision has been lost, to PHBs who think pages should look pretty.
I don't understand why anyone would think that this new, more busy, interface is better, given Google's success with their sparse layout.
I know that I have changed my home page from Yahoo to Google as a result of the re-design. I also know that many people reading the financial boards have moved to other venues.
So, running an illegal monopoly is OK, but getting money by other illegal methods is not? That's a distinction without a difference. Where do you draw the line? Is fraud OK, or do weapons have to be involved for you to condemn it?
Besides which, your argument is ridiculous: just because something is not absolutely necessary to live does not mean that it is not a monopoly that people effectively have to buy. For example: gasolene is not a necessity of life, yet how many people in the US could get buy without buying it? Let's go a bit further: are clothes a necessity of life? Probably not in summer for large parts of the USA.