Permissive Action Links (PALs) were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war on their own
Wow, that glosses over reality very nicely. The codes were all zeros until the 80's, because said generals refused to implement a system that would prevent them from "hitting back".
He rightly insisted on Permissive Action Links for the US Strategic Air Command Minuteman missiles and bombs - so that they could only be armed and detonated by the the correct codes from the President or the rest of the chain of command.
However, it turns out, that whilst McNamara was nominally in charge, that SAC decided to secretly order all the PAL codes to be set to eight zeros, so that there would not be any delays caused by communications problems during a nuclear war.
What's hilarious is that there were extensive efforts to implement PAL securely; all sorts of tamper-proofing and obfuscation in the weapons to make it such that you'd have to have a fair bit of training to have any hope of setting one off. Roughly the equivalent of installing high-security deadbolts throughout your property, and leaving the key in the front door lock.
Of course not all cops are bad, but the culture of the PD in Boston is terrible.
And it'll KEEP being that way if nobody reports the bad apples, moron.
PS: What does a Utah Highway patrol video have to do with Boston PD? Are you claiming you've been tasered by Boston PD? That's pretty funny, considering they don't carry tasers.
I call 911 on a regular basis to report out of control drivers and street fights (I live in Boston, there are tons of both of these).
Maybe in *your* part of Boston, chief. According to your domain registration, you live near both northeastern and fenway. Don't categorize the entire city just because you live in an area chock full of drunken jocks. Also, try exploring the rest of the Boston/metro area. There are so many different neighborhoods, each with a different 'feel', it's not even funny.
Two semi-related notes... first, a couple months ago my battery died when I was reporting a street fight. When I checked my voicemail after it was done charging I had an irate message from a cop yelling, "DO NOT HANG UP ON THE BOSTON POLICE!" and threatening me with arrest!
Save the voicemail and find your local district (ie the letter-number code) for where you were reporting the fight. Then go to that district's homepage and find who the CSO (community service officer) is. Write them a POLITE email or letter explaining that you were calling in a fight, got disconnected, and someone left you a very nasty voicemail. Offer to come in and play it back. If the CSO cares, they'll write it up for the captain or shift supervisor. And you might get an apology from the CSO or said shift supervisor. Believe it or not, there are people who care in BPD. Then again, that district probably spends a lot of time dealing with ]drunken] morons every night...they might be swamped, or somewhat bitter.
Can anyone tell me what 112 is?
EU/GSM emergency phone number. Heard of Google?
Re:any idiot should realize it's a hostile network
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Tor isn't aimed at sysadmins for use as a client. You are confusing the actors and roles in your message.
The point of my post is that at several organizations, including apparently a bunch of embassies, someone thought it was a good idea to install this stuff. It's the fault of the sysadmins for not advising their users better or not locking down machines (embassies should have good security.) What's truly frightening is the possibility that one of them recommended it, and that's even worse.
any idiot should realize it's a hostile network
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is this not what that swedish hacker said?
Is this not what anyone with a basic understanding of the most basic network/TCP concepts (ports, IP addresses, connections, that sort of thing) should have realized, if they read anything about Tor? Is this not something that the Tor project should have explained in clear language for those who do NOT have a basic understanding of networking?
It's beyond "untrusted". It's a hostile network and blatantly so, if you bother to read even a basic description of it. You should assume that your traffic will be routed out a node where a person, organization, or government is passively monitoring or actively attacking your traffic.
All this (repeated) fuss demonstrates is how many incompetent network/sysadmin people there are in the world, and how few people in the press and "blogging" community understand networking. Any idiot who knows ALL of the reasons why ssh is better than telnet (ie, answers more than just "it's encrypted, so people can't see what you're typing") should be able to tell you why Tor is a hostile network...unless they're just parroting what they've read elsewhere.
What I find particularly interesting about this article is the description of the 'camera-toting investigators following [The Pirate Bay admins] around in cars marked with Danish plates.' One TPB admin asks, '"What do they think they can find out by following us around? Everything we do is digital.'"
Anything they *can* find out, is what. Building up a criminal or civil case is all about setting up the dominoes of very basic and boring evidence. When they go to a judge and say "we want to search this location, it's the offices of Pirate Bay", the judge wants to see something beyond "we talked to this guy who knows this guy who said it's in this building." He wants to see that it's an office building, you go there regularly, etc.
Plus, if they're the cops, they're looking for anything that will legally get them inside your car, business, or home.
Also, I find the term "old fashioned pressure" to be hilariously misused here. The nice people sue. The mean ones may try the lawyers and politicians- and then go to the muscle.
TBP has got to be rolling in dough from advertisers. They should probably be spending some money on bodyguards and their own PI's (looking for anyone that might decide they've had enough.)
Of course, calling the credit union about it didn't help. They aren't open on the weekends. They can shut your account down kid, but they won't turn it back on again.
You don't call your credit union. You call the credit card company.
I belong to a credit union too, and I have a CC issued by my credit union. I bought an expensive piece of electronics, first major purchase on the card. On a Sunday afternoon, no less. That went through...but 30 minutes later, another transaction was declined. The credit card company acted on the unusual behavior and stopped the card and called me. I missed the call, but saw it when I went to call the 800 number on the back of my card with my cell phone.
Your credit union doesn't do jack shit except issue the card, accept payments if you wish, and show you balance/activity. Everything is outsourced to the holding bank or the credit card company itself. The holding bank's hotline is open 24x7x365...you just have to know the right place to call. After I confirmed I had made the purchase, the rep said "you're all set", and I said "how long until it's active?" "Immediately." I motioned to the cashier, and sure enough, it went through.
If it truly is the case that your card doesn't have a 24x7 800 number, complain to your credit union and see if they do anything. If not- get a CC that does have a 24x7 number. Vote with your wallet, chief.
And speaking of "trigger-happy", you seem to point the finger right back at the Web sites for not inspecting the ads and the underlaying code. Well, that's what they hire DoubleClick for,
And who decided to hire DoubleClick, instead of (as you mention) Google AdSense or a hundred other advertising networks, all of varying reputation, levels of annoying-ness, etc? Who negotiated the terms of the contract, which could have required vetting of ads by Doubleclick? Who had the power to chose between text, GIF, and Flash based ads? Who benefits financially from the presentation of those ads?
So, again tell me who is responsible for ME getting an infected PC visiting that website? If GM makes a car and the wheel falls off because Bob's Bolts sold them defective bolts, I can still sue GM for selling me a car on the reasonable assumption that GM would test bolts before putting them in a hundred thousand vehicles...and GM made the decision to buy from that particular supplier.
The way the world works is: I sue GM. GM then sues Bob's Bolts for damages (ie to reputation, the money they had to give me and spend on legal defense, cost of recall, etc.) Bob's Bolts then may sue Smith's Steel for selling them crappy steel.
Or, in this case: I sue The Economist for infecting my machine. The Economist turns around and sues Doubleclick for providing malicous ads. Doubleclick may then turn around and sue the company that made the malicious ads, for violating the terms of contract with Doubleclick specifying no malicious content...
The malware-spiked ads have been spotted on various legitimate websites, ranging from the British magazine The Economist to baseball's MLB.com to the Canada.com news portal.
...and since those sites outsource to Doubleclick, they'll point a finger at them. Doubleclick will no doubt point the finger at some previously-unheard-of company that "solicits advertisements for the Doubleclick network", and they'll point the finger at their "client."
Meanwhile, The Economist, MLB, Canada.com, etc won't take responsibility for the content they present on their website (after all, they chose to use Doubleclick, they chose to put advertisements on the website, they chose not to require approval of ads before they were shown on their website, etc.) Funny how everyone is trigger-happy when it comes to copyright, but when it comes to content they present causing harm, it ain't theirs, eh?:-)
Doubleclick, of course, won't accept responsibility for vetting advertising distributed via their channel (which seems like a standard business procedure for, oh, an advertising network?) The only comfort is the mechanism of the free market: if website users get pissed enough, said websites might put pressure on Doubleclick or leave them altogether. That's bad for Doubleclick business, so maybe Doubleclick will consider vetting ads better, or run checks to see that flash code doesn't do certain things, etc. Then again, if the malicious banner ad suppliers are paying good enough money, Doubleclick may be perfectly happy to issue a press release "apologizing" and keep right on doing business as usual.
The fact is, there is no FUZZY issue of guilt here - the fucking shit is clear as crystal - these adults were abusive towards a 13 yr old child w/ severe mental problems.
From the AP story:
Megan's mother, who monitored her daughter's online communications, returned home and said she was shocked at the vulgar language her own daughter was sending. She told her daughter how upset she was about it.
Megan ran upstairs, and her father, Ron, tried to tell her everything would be fine. About 20 minutes later, she was found in her bedroom.
Doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to see that the mom fucked up. If your kid has self-esteem issues and is faced with someone posting lies about her, you don't then chew her out for responding. It's like telling a rape victim, "gee, you were dressed kinda slutty." You support, not alienate or attack.
When your kid suddenly decides to run upstairs and hang herself, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it's because of something YOU did, right then, that pushed her over the edge?
To explore this, CIO.com has a big package of articles examining "Black Friday" and its implications
Wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I would hope CIOs already have the experience and background to know the problems and implications...especially if they're CIO for any sort of decent-sized online and/or brick-and-mortar retailer...
Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution)
...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others (NO organization should rely on ONE source for its money. Diversification is the name of the game.) Google's services are heavily bundled AND set as the default where there is choice. Does this sound familiar, anyone?
Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite, or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count) or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?
The doctor told me that a workman had been walking by carrying a window air conditioner at the exact moment the operator was test firing the magnets for the new MRI center they had just built right next door.
That's a cute story, but also shows a complete lack of knowledge of how MRIs work. The magnet is always on. The noise you hear during an MRI is the field switching, physically loading the coil. Anyway, you don't 'fire up' an MRI magnet, you "ramp" it up; they have to be charged slowly, using a specialized power supply that injects energy into the coil. It takes a technician hours to do it, and it's (hopefully) only done once in the lifetime of the magnet; the only other reason you'd have to do it was if you had an accidental or purposeful quench.
Someone should have lost their job for not building the room large enough to prevent such an incident (if it actually happened); the field strength drops dramatically with distance.
Oh- I also doubt the story because if it had been strong enough to rip the AC unit out of his hands, it would have continued until it hit the magnet. An AC unit would most certainly have enough mass to severely damage if not destroy the dewar, which would have resulted in loss of LN/LOX containment failure and rapid quenching (and probably destruction) of the magnet. You would have heard a lot more fuss about it.
Buy a couple hundered gallons and it'll be much cheaper. In fact, you start getting to the point where it's cheaper to make it youself. Since most hospitals make and store LOX, it shouldn't be too difficult.
If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd know that liquid oxygen has a higher temperature than liquid nitrogen. This is actually a danger of working with LN; you can end up with oxygen condensing in something you're cooling in LN.
They also consume quite a bit of LOX, so it's economical to run a LOX plant. It's not economical to run a LN plant; it's not used enough. Yes, it's not "that" expensive, but it adds up over time, and it also represents an operational hazard.
I was going to make some witty comment about the bullet not going very far, but then again lead isn't paramagnetic, is it?:)
Nope, though not all bullets are lead.
Jokes aside, the field is very strong and ALWAYS on. The oxygen cylinder incident killed the kid who was in the MRI machine at the time; gooooo White Plains Medical center!
Another benefit I forgot to mention is that the machine won't need to be powered up for very long, nor will it need to be quenched in the event of an emergency (which entitles dumping all the electrical energy into heat. Sometimes accidentally, like when the liquid helium coolant drops too low.) It also opens up avenues for people who have metal implants to get MRIs. It's not just magnetic attraction that is a problem; metal can be heated up by the rapidly switching field during an actual scan. High strength MRIs already do this in your *body* because of its conductivity!(we're talking the newest, highest strength human-clinical machines. Research MRIs well exceed clinical machines, and a lot of clinical machines are only a few tesla.)
Off the top of my head, some plusses and negatives.
Plusses: less (very expensive) liquid helium or (less expensive but still $$) liquid nitrogen. Less of a magnetic field means much higher MRI safety; everything from oxygen cylinders to chairs to guns have been drawn into/against MRIs (the gun was a prison guard who got pushy and DEMANDED to be in the same room as a prisoner. Yeah, the gun went off. No, nobody was hurt.)
Negatives: since the MRI isn't as strong, it might be more affected by local magnetic fields from wiring, ferrous objects, etc. Dunno. Right now, MRIs are installed into big rooms that have as little ferrous material as possible, and then very carefully "shimmed" to adjust for the building and local magnetic fields by a technician. Even if an MRI gets down to "suitcase" size, the necessity of a "clean" environment and calibration for each location might make moving them around very tough.
As a side note, there are already shielded MRI machines which work in a trailer and require little setup time, but being outdoors makes things easier- no building infrastructure to mess with the magnetic fields.
I hate this view that some how results of tests on animals don't apply to humans at all. It's simply not true, almost every major medical advance has been tested or researched on animals like mice first. the simple fact is mammals bodies all work in very similar ways.
Having worked in a lab (disclaimer: not as a scientist) I learned that there are loads and loads of promising treatments for cancer and such that work great in mice, and never translate beyond. Even a casual glance at immunology from a layman's perspective reveals your statement to be utter bullshit; there are many, many diseases and afflictions that are species specific, sometimes highly so.
Anyway...it is entirely plausible that this ability to re-purpose brain cells is a plus for mice in survival/adaptation, where they have very little brain capacity at their disposal. We have loads at our disposal, and tend to build a lot of generally useful knowledge..ie, we build tools, literally or figuratively, and apply those 'real' tools or knowledge/skill 'tools'. Mice do not do either. We're more "general purpose", so maybe we don't *need* the ability to re-learn, since our learned skills are so broadly applicable in a survival sense.
Where did the submitter get their information from for saying that it's one of the most widely used mail servers ? I suppose if you "widen" your limits a fair way it could come in as being moderately popular.
Sendmail, Postfix, Exchange... sure, they're up there in the high levels.
Anyhow, would love to see a site/page showing the breakdown of mail servers around the net.
Qmail is damn well near the bottom, behind MXLogic, Exchange, Postini, Postfix, "other", "unknown", and Sendmail. Disclaimer: the survey represents fingerprinted public servers.
There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative.
Precisely. The owner of Sound Bytes in Somerville is famous for booting people with cell phones. You can have one on you, but if you talk in the place and he sees it, you're in trouble.
Conversation that was repeated to me:
"Blah blah yak yak blah blah"
"HEY! You a doctor?" "Uh...no." "You a fireman?" "No."
"THEN DON'T TALK ON YOUR FUCKING PHONE IN MY RESTAURANT." The kid was actually told to take a hike.
Post a sign on the premises, perhaps the matre'd can remind people when he/she sits them, and then enforce it.
Granted, Final Cut Studio has become the standard when it comes to professional video editing, and Logic Studio is a great professional solution for editing audio, but what about the graphics and Web design segments of the market? If people want tools to support these interests on the Mac, then they turn to Adobe.
It boils down to this: Pick the battles you can win.
Quick, everyone, let's jump in the wayback machine to the 90's, when Apple "made" just about everything under the sun. And was doing a pretty shit job of it, and suffering for it. Part of what brought back Apple was Steve saying "what the fuck are we doing making digital cameras and a dozen different desktop computers?" They dropped all the shit products Apple was screwing around with, and simplified the product line down to just two laptop models and three desktops, all with clearly delineated target audiences and design.
Apple has benefited for two reasons: their business capabilities are not diluted as much, and consumers find the buying experience easier and simpler.
I've needed to buy a new bike and a cell phone recently. Both industries are chock full of companies that will offer you DOZENS of different products that are all every so slightly different; go look at Nokia's website sometime. Fifty goddamn phones, when really there's only 3-4 categories of 'em.
Apple has acquired sotware packages and such when (I believe) they felt it would benefit the platform, or there was a deal to be had. This is the same reasoning behind the various Apple peripherals we were inundated with in the 90's; nobody else made a good Appletalk laser printer, so Apple said "dammit, we'll do it ourselves." It made sense to some degree, bolstered by the fact that schools liked to buy everything from one place. It's nice to be able to get everything for your gradeschool lab from one place. To some degree.
That's the challenge I think Apple will face in the future: not getting caught up in too many product areas trying to support the platform, to the extent that both the core hardware suffers and the sideline stuff no longer becomes compelling.
Slashdot Mirror
Permissive Action Links (PALs) were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war on their own
Wow, that glosses over reality very nicely. The codes were all zeros until the 80's, because said generals refused to implement a system that would prevent them from "hitting back".
He rightly insisted on Permissive Action Links for the US Strategic Air Command Minuteman missiles and bombs - so that they could only be armed and detonated by the the correct codes from the President or the rest of the chain of command. However, it turns out, that whilst McNamara was nominally in charge, that SAC decided to secretly order all the PAL codes to be set to eight zeros, so that there would not be any delays caused by communications problems during a nuclear war.
(From http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-not-to-write-about-uk-nuclear.html)
What's hilarious is that there were extensive efforts to implement PAL securely; all sorts of tamper-proofing and obfuscation in the weapons to make it such that you'd have to have a fair bit of training to have any hope of setting one off. Roughly the equivalent of installing high-security deadbolts throughout your property, and leaving the key in the front door lock.
Of course not all cops are bad, but the culture of the PD in Boston is terrible.
And it'll KEEP being that way if nobody reports the bad apples, moron.
PS: What does a Utah Highway patrol video have to do with Boston PD? Are you claiming you've been tasered by Boston PD? That's pretty funny, considering they don't carry tasers.
I call 911 on a regular basis to report out of control drivers and street fights (I live in Boston, there are tons of both of these).
Maybe in *your* part of Boston, chief. According to your domain registration, you live near both northeastern and fenway. Don't categorize the entire city just because you live in an area chock full of drunken jocks. Also, try exploring the rest of the Boston/metro area. There are so many different neighborhoods, each with a different 'feel', it's not even funny.
Two semi-related notes... first, a couple months ago my battery died when I was reporting a street fight. When I checked my voicemail after it was done charging I had an irate message from a cop yelling, "DO NOT HANG UP ON THE BOSTON POLICE!" and threatening me with arrest!
Save the voicemail and find your local district (ie the letter-number code) for where you were reporting the fight. Then go to that district's homepage and find who the CSO (community service officer) is. Write them a POLITE email or letter explaining that you were calling in a fight, got disconnected, and someone left you a very nasty voicemail. Offer to come in and play it back. If the CSO cares, they'll write it up for the captain or shift supervisor. And you might get an apology from the CSO or said shift supervisor. Believe it or not, there are people who care in BPD. Then again, that district probably spends a lot of time dealing with ]drunken] morons every night...they might be swamped, or somewhat bitter.
Can anyone tell me what 112 is?
EU/GSM emergency phone number. Heard of Google?
Tor isn't aimed at sysadmins for use as a client. You are confusing the actors and roles in your message.
The point of my post is that at several organizations, including apparently a bunch of embassies, someone thought it was a good idea to install this stuff. It's the fault of the sysadmins for not advising their users better or not locking down machines (embassies should have good security.) What's truly frightening is the possibility that one of them recommended it, and that's even worse.
Is this not what that swedish hacker said?
Is this not what anyone with a basic understanding of the most basic network/TCP concepts (ports, IP addresses, connections, that sort of thing) should have realized, if they read anything about Tor? Is this not something that the Tor project should have explained in clear language for those who do NOT have a basic understanding of networking?
It's beyond "untrusted". It's a hostile network and blatantly so, if you bother to read even a basic description of it. You should assume that your traffic will be routed out a node where a person, organization, or government is passively monitoring or actively attacking your traffic.
All this (repeated) fuss demonstrates is how many incompetent network/sysadmin people there are in the world, and how few people in the press and "blogging" community understand networking. Any idiot who knows ALL of the reasons why ssh is better than telnet (ie, answers more than just "it's encrypted, so people can't see what you're typing") should be able to tell you why Tor is a hostile network...unless they're just parroting what they've read elsewhere.
What I find particularly interesting about this article is the description of the 'camera-toting investigators following [The Pirate Bay admins] around in cars marked with Danish plates.' One TPB admin asks, '"What do they think they can find out by following us around? Everything we do is digital.'"
Anything they *can* find out, is what. Building up a criminal or civil case is all about setting up the dominoes of very basic and boring evidence. When they go to a judge and say "we want to search this location, it's the offices of Pirate Bay", the judge wants to see something beyond "we talked to this guy who knows this guy who said it's in this building." He wants to see that it's an office building, you go there regularly, etc.
Plus, if they're the cops, they're looking for anything that will legally get them inside your car, business, or home.
Also, I find the term "old fashioned pressure" to be hilariously misused here. The nice people sue. The mean ones may try the lawyers and politicians- and then go to the muscle.
TBP has got to be rolling in dough from advertisers. They should probably be spending some money on bodyguards and their own PI's (looking for anyone that might decide they've had enough.)
Of course, calling the credit union about it didn't help. They aren't open on the weekends. They can shut your account down kid, but they won't turn it back on again.
You don't call your credit union. You call the credit card company.
I belong to a credit union too, and I have a CC issued by my credit union. I bought an expensive piece of electronics, first major purchase on the card. On a Sunday afternoon, no less. That went through...but 30 minutes later, another transaction was declined. The credit card company acted on the unusual behavior and stopped the card and called me. I missed the call, but saw it when I went to call the 800 number on the back of my card with my cell phone.
Your credit union doesn't do jack shit except issue the card, accept payments if you wish, and show you balance/activity. Everything is outsourced to the holding bank or the credit card company itself. The holding bank's hotline is open 24x7x365...you just have to know the right place to call. After I confirmed I had made the purchase, the rep said "you're all set", and I said "how long until it's active?" "Immediately." I motioned to the cashier, and sure enough, it went through.
If it truly is the case that your card doesn't have a 24x7 800 number, complain to your credit union and see if they do anything. If not- get a CC that does have a 24x7 number. Vote with your wallet, chief.
And speaking of "trigger-happy", you seem to point the finger right back at the Web sites for not inspecting the ads and the underlaying code. Well, that's what they hire DoubleClick for,
And who decided to hire DoubleClick, instead of (as you mention) Google AdSense or a hundred other advertising networks, all of varying reputation, levels of annoying-ness, etc? Who negotiated the terms of the contract, which could have required vetting of ads by Doubleclick? Who had the power to chose between text, GIF, and Flash based ads? Who benefits financially from the presentation of those ads?
So, again tell me who is responsible for ME getting an infected PC visiting that website? If GM makes a car and the wheel falls off because Bob's Bolts sold them defective bolts, I can still sue GM for selling me a car on the reasonable assumption that GM would test bolts before putting them in a hundred thousand vehicles...and GM made the decision to buy from that particular supplier.
The way the world works is: I sue GM. GM then sues Bob's Bolts for damages (ie to reputation, the money they had to give me and spend on legal defense, cost of recall, etc.) Bob's Bolts then may sue Smith's Steel for selling them crappy steel.
Or, in this case: I sue The Economist for infecting my machine. The Economist turns around and sues Doubleclick for providing malicous ads. Doubleclick may then turn around and sue the company that made the malicious ads, for violating the terms of contract with Doubleclick specifying no malicious content...
The malware-spiked ads have been spotted on various legitimate websites, ranging from the British magazine The Economist to baseball's MLB.com to the Canada.com news portal.
...and since those sites outsource to Doubleclick, they'll point a finger at them. Doubleclick will no doubt point the finger at some previously-unheard-of company that "solicits advertisements for the Doubleclick network", and they'll point the finger at their "client."
Meanwhile, The Economist, MLB, Canada.com, etc won't take responsibility for the content they present on their website (after all, they chose to use Doubleclick, they chose to put advertisements on the website, they chose not to require approval of ads before they were shown on their website, etc.) Funny how everyone is trigger-happy when it comes to copyright, but when it comes to content they present causing harm, it ain't theirs, eh? :-)
Doubleclick, of course, won't accept responsibility for vetting advertising distributed via their channel (which seems like a standard business procedure for, oh, an advertising network?) The only comfort is the mechanism of the free market: if website users get pissed enough, said websites might put pressure on Doubleclick or leave them altogether. That's bad for Doubleclick business, so maybe Doubleclick will consider vetting ads better, or run checks to see that flash code doesn't do certain things, etc. Then again, if the malicious banner ad suppliers are paying good enough money, Doubleclick may be perfectly happy to issue a press release "apologizing" and keep right on doing business as usual.
The problem with backdoors, is that noone can guarantee who uses them.
I can't believe you got modded up to 5, Informative for pointing out something utterly, trivially obvious to this audience.
The fact is, there is no FUZZY issue of guilt here - the fucking shit is clear as crystal - these adults were abusive towards a 13 yr old child w/ severe mental problems.
From the AP story:
Megan's mother, who monitored her daughter's online communications, returned home and said she was shocked at the vulgar language her own daughter was sending. She told her daughter how upset she was about it. Megan ran upstairs, and her father, Ron, tried to tell her everything would be fine. About 20 minutes later, she was found in her bedroom.
Doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to see that the mom fucked up. If your kid has self-esteem issues and is faced with someone posting lies about her, you don't then chew her out for responding. It's like telling a rape victim, "gee, you were dressed kinda slutty." You support, not alienate or attack.
When your kid suddenly decides to run upstairs and hang herself, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it's because of something YOU did, right then, that pushed her over the edge?
To explore this, CIO.com has a big package of articles examining "Black Friday" and its implications
Wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I would hope CIOs already have the experience and background to know the problems and implications...especially if they're CIO for any sort of decent-sized online and/or brick-and-mortar retailer...
Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution)
...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others (NO organization should rely on ONE source for its money. Diversification is the name of the game.) Google's services are heavily bundled AND set as the default where there is choice. Does this sound familiar, anyone?
Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite, or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count) or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?
...but as of a day or two ago, I am more disgusted to hear the words "google" and "phone" than "iPhone."
In fact, in general, I'm tired of hearing about Google. (Filterable) category, please.
Christ, can't anyone take a joke? The summary reads like they completely left out a sentence or three.
...is a great example of why TCP/IP has re-transmission. Now if only they'd implement duplicate story rejection...
The doctor told me that a workman had been walking by carrying a window air conditioner at the exact moment the operator was test firing the magnets for the new MRI center they had just built right next door.
That's a cute story, but also shows a complete lack of knowledge of how MRIs work. The magnet is always on. The noise you hear during an MRI is the field switching, physically loading the coil. Anyway, you don't 'fire up' an MRI magnet, you "ramp" it up; they have to be charged slowly, using a specialized power supply that injects energy into the coil. It takes a technician hours to do it, and it's (hopefully) only done once in the lifetime of the magnet; the only other reason you'd have to do it was if you had an accidental or purposeful quench.
Someone should have lost their job for not building the room large enough to prevent such an incident (if it actually happened); the field strength drops dramatically with distance.
Oh- I also doubt the story because if it had been strong enough to rip the AC unit out of his hands, it would have continued until it hit the magnet. An AC unit would most certainly have enough mass to severely damage if not destroy the dewar, which would have resulted in loss of LN/LOX containment failure and rapid quenching (and probably destruction) of the magnet. You would have heard a lot more fuss about it.
Buy a couple hundered gallons and it'll be much cheaper. In fact, you start getting to the point where it's cheaper to make it youself. Since most hospitals make and store LOX, it shouldn't be too difficult.
If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd know that liquid oxygen has a higher temperature than liquid nitrogen. This is actually a danger of working with LN; you can end up with oxygen condensing in something you're cooling in LN.
They also consume quite a bit of LOX, so it's economical to run a LOX plant. It's not economical to run a LN plant; it's not used enough. Yes, it's not "that" expensive, but it adds up over time, and it also represents an operational hazard.
I was going to make some witty comment about the bullet not going very far, but then again lead isn't paramagnetic, is it? :)
Nope, though not all bullets are lead.
Jokes aside, the field is very strong and ALWAYS on. The oxygen cylinder incident killed the kid who was in the MRI machine at the time; gooooo White Plains Medical center!
Another benefit I forgot to mention is that the machine won't need to be powered up for very long, nor will it need to be quenched in the event of an emergency (which entitles dumping all the electrical energy into heat. Sometimes accidentally, like when the liquid helium coolant drops too low.) It also opens up avenues for people who have metal implants to get MRIs. It's not just magnetic attraction that is a problem; metal can be heated up by the rapidly switching field during an actual scan. High strength MRIs already do this in your *body* because of its conductivity!(we're talking the newest, highest strength human-clinical machines. Research MRIs well exceed clinical machines, and a lot of clinical machines are only a few tesla.)
Plusses: less (very expensive) liquid helium or (less expensive but still $$) liquid nitrogen. Less of a magnetic field means much higher MRI safety; everything from oxygen cylinders to chairs to guns have been drawn into/against MRIs (the gun was a prison guard who got pushy and DEMANDED to be in the same room as a prisoner. Yeah, the gun went off. No, nobody was hurt.)
Negatives: since the MRI isn't as strong, it might be more affected by local magnetic fields from wiring, ferrous objects, etc. Dunno. Right now, MRIs are installed into big rooms that have as little ferrous material as possible, and then very carefully "shimmed" to adjust for the building and local magnetic fields by a technician. Even if an MRI gets down to "suitcase" size, the necessity of a "clean" environment and calibration for each location might make moving them around very tough.
As a side note, there are already shielded MRI machines which work in a trailer and require little setup time, but being outdoors makes things easier- no building infrastructure to mess with the magnetic fields.
I hate this view that some how results of tests on animals don't apply to humans at all. It's simply not true, almost every major medical advance has been tested or researched on animals like mice first. the simple fact is mammals bodies all work in very similar ways.
Having worked in a lab (disclaimer: not as a scientist) I learned that there are loads and loads of promising treatments for cancer and such that work great in mice, and never translate beyond. Even a casual glance at immunology from a layman's perspective reveals your statement to be utter bullshit; there are many, many diseases and afflictions that are species specific, sometimes highly so.
Anyway...it is entirely plausible that this ability to re-purpose brain cells is a plus for mice in survival/adaptation, where they have very little brain capacity at their disposal. We have loads at our disposal, and tend to build a lot of generally useful knowledge..ie, we build tools, literally or figuratively, and apply those 'real' tools or knowledge/skill 'tools'. Mice do not do either. We're more "general purpose", so maybe we don't *need* the ability to re-learn, since our learned skills are so broadly applicable in a survival sense.
Where did the submitter get their information from for saying that it's one of the most widely used mail servers ? I suppose if you "widen" your limits a fair way it could come in as being moderately popular. Sendmail, Postfix, Exchange... sure, they're up there in the high levels. Anyhow, would love to see a site/page showing the breakdown of mail servers around the net.
They got their information by smoking crack; Postfix is hot the tail of sendmail, which is currently #1: http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/postfix-mailchannels.pdf
Qmail is damn well near the bottom, behind MXLogic, Exchange, Postini, Postfix, "other", "unknown", and Sendmail. Disclaimer: the survey represents fingerprinted public servers.
Nothing like primary source material, folks.
I really grow tired of Slashdot linking to another site that describes a web page, instead of just linking to the page itself.
There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative.
Precisely. The owner of Sound Bytes in Somerville is famous for booting people with cell phones. You can have one on you, but if you talk in the place and he sees it, you're in trouble.
Conversation that was repeated to me:
"Blah blah yak yak blah blah"
"HEY! You a doctor?" "Uh...no." "You a fireman?" "No."
"THEN DON'T TALK ON YOUR FUCKING PHONE IN MY RESTAURANT." The kid was actually told to take a hike.
Post a sign on the premises, perhaps the matre'd can remind people when he/she sits them, and then enforce it.
Granted, Final Cut Studio has become the standard when it comes to professional video editing, and Logic Studio is a great professional solution for editing audio, but what about the graphics and Web design segments of the market? If people want tools to support these interests on the Mac, then they turn to Adobe.
It boils down to this: Pick the battles you can win.
Quick, everyone, let's jump in the wayback machine to the 90's, when Apple "made" just about everything under the sun. And was doing a pretty shit job of it, and suffering for it. Part of what brought back Apple was Steve saying "what the fuck are we doing making digital cameras and a dozen different desktop computers?" They dropped all the shit products Apple was screwing around with, and simplified the product line down to just two laptop models and three desktops, all with clearly delineated target audiences and design.
Apple has benefited for two reasons: their business capabilities are not diluted as much, and consumers find the buying experience easier and simpler.
I've needed to buy a new bike and a cell phone recently. Both industries are chock full of companies that will offer you DOZENS of different products that are all every so slightly different; go look at Nokia's website sometime. Fifty goddamn phones, when really there's only 3-4 categories of 'em.
Apple has acquired sotware packages and such when (I believe) they felt it would benefit the platform, or there was a deal to be had. This is the same reasoning behind the various Apple peripherals we were inundated with in the 90's; nobody else made a good Appletalk laser printer, so Apple said "dammit, we'll do it ourselves." It made sense to some degree, bolstered by the fact that schools liked to buy everything from one place. It's nice to be able to get everything for your gradeschool lab from one place. To some degree.
That's the challenge I think Apple will face in the future: not getting caught up in too many product areas trying to support the platform, to the extent that both the core hardware suffers and the sideline stuff no longer becomes compelling.