Errr, so when I'm at a resort in Mexico and feel like cranking out a few lines of code because I actually like my job, I'm breaking the law? That's either messed up or a gross misinterpretation.
First, the Mexican's won't care, Ok?
Second, doing incidental work for your regular job while on vacation isn't against the law in any place I'm aware of. Nobody said you couldn't take a call or answer email while on vacation. But intentionally traveling on a tourist visa with full intent to spend most of your time working amounts to lying on your visa application.
Interacting with the locals (buying/selling/hiring/or being employed) in such a way that it takes away a local job is what every country is trying to prevent. If your employer wasn't going to hire a mexican national to fix the accounts receivable reconciliation routine, and you are dumb enough to do that instead of sucking down a cool one while girl watching on the beach, I'm sure they don't care, as long as you leave money in their country.
But the Original poster stated"
that a large amount of the websites I need to have access to on a daily basis for business reasons
Really? A "LARGE" amount of websites on a DAILY basis for BUSINESS reasons??? On a Tourist visa? That says visa Fraud right there.
I'm not sure whether to be more impressed by:
1) the scale of the universe itself
2) the ability of some insignificant bags of protoplasm on an insignificant planet near a run of the mill star, in a less than impressive galaxy could find a way to actually see that far
3) the fact that they held the camera that steady for 2 million seconds (23 days)
4) That the camera moved 36 million miles during those 23 days and it didn't make any difference in the final image.
But other than that, the image looks exactly like a gazillion other images from Hubble, so one has to take it on faith that it is what it says it is.
What does a credit hour cost? How many students are going to be ripped off? What percentage of those already learned this in high school or junior high?
It's institutionalized theft. I'm amazed you are so sanguine about it.
The consequences, with or without a replacement would be pretty severe.
Think Syria raised to the power of 10.
The Russian army would have no compunction against shooting down citizens in the streets by the hundreds, which is exactly what Putin would order. There is a reason Russia backs Bashar al-Assad to the hilt, and its because they see nothing wrong with what he is doing, and consider it the normal response to any uprising.
Russian opposition watch this happening, and the support for it expressed by the Russian government.
Probably you do as well, if you have auto-updates applied.
Quote first sentence of Summary:
Microsoft issued an emergency patch for a flaw in the Internet Explorer browser on Friday,... the notes to Microsoft's patch credit the TippingPoint Zero Day Initiative for finding the flaw,
Oh, the difference here is that exploits once discovered work almost 100% of the time on a board variety of systems. And because the pc market is mostly a monoculture, these exploits effect every system in the block!. In fact this has been observed a number of timer: Or who can forget CodeRed, iloveyou, blaster; conficker/downup, stuxnet, duqu, flame,... All these had some major impact on the computing community, so you can't compare that with the odd broken axel or loose bolts.
Actually, they don't work 100% of the time. Its a browser bug. It only affects IE 6-9. Not Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. It only appears on a few dodgy websites. The fact that this is unheard of pretty much means its not close to affecting 100%.
But hey, thanks for reminding me about all those other exploits,
who can forget CodeRed, iloveyou, blaster; conficker/downup, stuxnet, duqu, flame,
I had indeed forgotten about these. Probably because they never affected me. Or anyone that I knew.
Because they got blocked by Anti Virus software on windows well before they became epidemic in scope. And of course none of them bothered linux.
Checking for the signature of an actual attack is not at all the same as shipping a patch to PREVENT that attack from succeeding AT ALL.
Exactly. But it does provide a measurement of how fast (it at all) the exploit is spreading, and prevents the currently known payloads from being installed while a solution is found that would allow the vulnerability to be permanently closed.
It allows you to triage the various exploits that need the most immediate attention.
They spend the money on bread and circuses while leaving the waste at the plants. Typical federal government.
Actually leaving the waste at the plant may in the long run prove to be the right decision.
After all, if this method works it is likely to be co-located with an existing generation plant, because it has the potential of transmuting the spent fuels into something useful again.
As TFA points out: In 2006 France changed its laws and regulations in anticipation of this new technology, and now requires that nuclear waste storage sites remain accessible for at least a hundred years so that the waste can be reclaimed.
Transporting, burying, and sealing waste up into vaults that may be too dangerous to open, could turn out to be exactly the wrong decision.
And they may have done just that, by slipping in a signature into the millions of machines running Microsoft Security Essentials, looking for the droppings of the exploit even when they haven't found the actual hole.
They may have known it wasn't being widely exploited (Eric Romang didn't discover it till Sept 17), just because they were not getting hits in MSE, and had time to seek a complete patch.
Wrong in so many ways.. For one, you assume that only one person discovered or knows about the flaw, that same person is a "good" person and not using the flaw to their advantage for hacking/cracking, and the only other people they told about it was MS.
And you assume announcing a flaw well before you have a fix in hand won't send two thousand hackers rushing in to try to exploit it. Or maybe you think all hackers are honorable and wouldn't try to exploit something they read about but for which there is no current fix?
Look, there is no such thing as a defect free product. Does not exist in any realm.
Given that, an instant recall of any product subsequently found to have a defect would shut down commerce totally. It would be completely unworkable in the real world. Its nothing about returning shareholder value. Its about keeping civilization running WHILE you fix infrastructure instead of running screaming back into the cave every time you discover a loose screw on a cabinet door.
Complex systems are complex to fix. But they work. Bugs and all. They hang together. Loose axle bolts on a pickup truck, or an obscure vulnerability in a browser. 99.9999% of the users will not encounter the problem, and when they do the vast majority of them will not get hurt. However, everybody gets hurt when idealists rush in, order all IE9 users to cease and desist using it, and all pickup trucks owners to park them until a fix is found. Its ridiculous.
Further, You can't "quash" anything these days. Don't even go there. Bugs get fixed in order of priority. Triage. Look it up some time.
I work in the field and can say there's tons of researchers who submit these flaws. Not all of them can be fixed instantly, and in some instances (like this) fixing them could actually create hints for hackers to use and exploit. That's why it's often better to be silent about them and make a fix ready in case they are publicly exploited. One of the worst case scenarios is if you patch something with huge notes about it and the hackers find out about the flaw that way..
The summary makes it seem like Microsoft did something underhanded by attributing the bug report to a source that pre-dates the publishing by Eric Romang. All this says is TippingPoint Zero Day Initiative acted responsibly, and Romang didn't.
As for how long it took, one can't make any judgement with no idea of the scope of the problem, or the testing they had to do in order to make sure the fix was proper, and didn't hurt anything else, and worked on every variety of their platform, the number of parts of the system needing the patch, etc.
Nor can we be positive that temporary measures may have been put in place until a formal patch was found, (such as a signature added to Security Essentials and shared with other security companies).
The last thing you want to do is announce you have a patch coming before you really have a patch in hand.
When the Government holds more Helium than all other sources combined, and starts selling it below production cost, it takes a total idiot to blame any part of that on the free market.
What Free market? The government killed off the free market in helium in the 30s.
Mostly agreed. But if y watch their rubbish carefully you will find that they really only used a small portion (repetitively) so your point about "portion" is strengthened.
This isn't worth the effort. Nobody is going to the clown work for an educational video.
I was wondering - couldn't we do fusion reactors, which involve protium & deuterium, and produce He-3 that way? We'd have plenty of supply for the baloons
There is no shortage of Helium. Nor is it particularly hard to extract.
The problem is that the US government had pretty much cornered the market on the gas, and then decided Blimps were not it its future, and started selling off the entire (enormous) reserve at below market prices. Soon this inventory will be exhausted, and production will resume by private industry just as it was done in the 30s.
This is strictly a manufactured shortage, due to a quirk of history. There is no more real shortage of Helium gas on earth than there ever was.
Yeah. This article struck me as particularly whiny. 30 Nuclear Power Plants! The horror.
It's almost like they want you to read a paper newspaper or something.
I question virtually ALL the claims in the story. Its nonsense of the highest order, with no research to back it up. Do you see Google or Amazon publishing utilization rates of server farms?
Do you see Amazon or Google or any cloud provider having problems paying the power bill? Did they not say that "Data Center providers are finding that they can't rack servers fast enough to provide for users' needs"?
If the power bill is paid, what is the problem?
Why isn't the harm done to the world's resources (and society in general) by publishing the New York Time evaluated?
Nancy Nielsen, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said only the limited supply of recycled paper constrained the company from using more of it. She said 6.5 percent of the newsprint used by the company contained recycled fibers.
...
''The inventory of waste newspaper is at an all-time record high,'' said J. Rodney Edwards, a spokesman for the American Paper Institute, a trade organization. ''Mills and paper dealers have in their warehouses over one million tons of newspapers, which represents a third of a year's production. There comes a point when the warehouse space will be completely filled.''
Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.
Just let it go.
So what if they use your video with their own message, anyone searching for your subject matter won't find theirs and will find yours instead.
Further, since your's is only 3 minutes, and theirs is 5 and mostly composed of their bullshit, using only a small part of your video (over and over again) they may well believe they are within the boundaries of fair use. (Comedic parody comes to mind).
However, if you want to fight it.... They probably have no more money than you do to pursue this. The next step under the DMCA is to file suit. Once you have evidence of a lawsuit file, you can have YouTube take it down permanantly pending the outcome of the case.
Preparation legal fees probably amount to some small amount of lawyer fees (mostly rubber stamped document preparation) in some obscure court where you can pay some small lawyer office to go to court on the appointed day and win a summary judgement by default because these clowns will not show up. Shop around to neighborhood lawyers and you will find one hungry enough to do the paper work for you. They don't have to be good, or experienced, because these clowns are not going to show up or even answer your suit.
App.net runs afoul of my "first in place" theory of incrimentally improved replacemts for existing entrenched internet services.
No matter how bad Twitter, Facebook, or [insert object of your rath] are, they will remain in place until some new facility arrives with a fundamentally different and novel approach.
We are stuck with twitter for the next ten years. It may evolve, and lose the 140 byte limit, but the idea of announcing, to the world at large, that you are having tacos for lunch somehow appeals to a lot of self absorbed people, and won't be displaced by a similar service.
Slashdot Mirror
What signal to noise ratio do you have in an optical telescope in space?
IANAA, but it is that it is all relative.
Exactly.
Errr, so when I'm at a resort in Mexico and feel like cranking out a few lines of code because I actually like my job, I'm breaking the law? That's either messed up or a gross misinterpretation.
First, the Mexican's won't care, Ok?
Second, doing incidental work for your regular job while on vacation isn't against the law in any place I'm aware of. Nobody said you couldn't take a call or answer email while on vacation. But intentionally traveling on a tourist visa with full intent to spend most of your time working amounts to lying on your visa application.
Interacting with the locals (buying/selling/hiring/or being employed) in such a way that it takes away a local job is what every country is trying to prevent. If your employer wasn't going to hire a mexican national to fix the accounts receivable reconciliation routine, and you are dumb enough to do that instead of sucking down a cool one while girl watching on the beach, I'm sure they don't care, as long as you leave money in their country.
But the Original poster stated"
that a large amount of the websites I need to have access to on a daily basis for business reasons
Really? A "LARGE" amount of websites on a DAILY basis for BUSINESS reasons??? On a Tourist visa? That says visa Fraud right there.
Ok, I officially feel small now.
I'm not sure whether to be more impressed by:
1) the scale of the universe itself
2) the ability of some insignificant bags of protoplasm on an insignificant planet near a run of the mill star, in a less than impressive galaxy could find a way to actually see that far
3) the fact that they held the camera that steady for 2 million seconds (23 days)
4) That the camera moved 36 million miles during those 23 days and it didn't make any difference in the final image.
But other than that, the image looks exactly like a gazillion other images from Hubble, so one has to take it on faith that it is what it says it is.
Serves you right for running windows servers NOT FIREWALLED.
What the hell were you thinking?
Like I said, none of those outbreaks affected me or my customers.
So you say.
What does a credit hour cost?
How many students are going to be ripped off? What percentage of those already learned this in high school or junior high?
It's institutionalized theft. I'm amazed you are so sanguine about it.
The consequences, with or without a replacement would be pretty severe.
Think Syria raised to the power of 10.
The Russian army would have no compunction against shooting down citizens in the streets by the hundreds, which is exactly what Putin would order. There is a reason Russia backs Bashar al-Assad to the hilt, and its because they see nothing wrong with what he is doing, and consider it the normal response to any uprising.
Russian opposition watch this happening, and the support for it expressed by the Russian government.
They can read between the lines.
Probably you do as well, if you have auto-updates applied.
Quote first sentence of Summary:
Microsoft issued an emergency patch for a flaw in the Internet Explorer browser on Friday,... the notes to Microsoft's patch credit the TippingPoint Zero Day Initiative for finding the flaw,
So problem solved.
Being honest about it does not include advertising a vulnerability you have no solution for.
How would that possibly make the problem better?
Its like hanging a big sign on your front door that says your lock is broken.
Oh, the difference here is that exploits once discovered work almost 100% of the time on a board variety of systems. And because the pc market is mostly a monoculture, these exploits effect every system in the block!. In fact this has been observed a number of timer: Or who can forget CodeRed, iloveyou, blaster; conficker/downup, stuxnet, duqu, flame, ... All these had some major impact on the computing community, so you can't compare that with the odd broken axel or loose bolts.
Actually, they don't work 100% of the time.
Its a browser bug.
It only affects IE 6-9. Not Safari, Chrome, or Firefox.
It only appears on a few dodgy websites.
The fact that this is unheard of pretty much means its not close to affecting 100%.
But hey, thanks for reminding me about all those other exploits,
who can forget CodeRed, iloveyou, blaster; conficker/downup, stuxnet, duqu, flame,
I had indeed forgotten about these.
Probably because they never affected me.
Or anyone that I knew.
Because they got blocked by Anti Virus software on windows well before they became epidemic in scope.
And of course none of them bothered linux.
Checking for the signature of an actual attack is not at all the same as shipping a patch to PREVENT that attack from succeeding AT ALL.
Exactly. But it does provide a measurement of how fast (it at all) the exploit is spreading, and prevents the currently known payloads from being installed while a solution is found that would allow the vulnerability to be permanently closed.
It allows you to triage the various exploits that need the most immediate attention.
They spend the money on bread and circuses while leaving the waste at the plants. Typical federal government.
Actually leaving the waste at the plant may in the long run prove to be the right decision.
After all, if this method works it is likely to be co-located with an existing generation plant, because it has the potential of transmuting the spent fuels into something useful again.
As TFA points out: In 2006 France changed its laws and regulations in anticipation of this new technology, and now requires that nuclear waste storage sites remain accessible for at least a hundred years so that the waste can be reclaimed.
Transporting, burying, and sealing waste up into vaults that may be too dangerous to open, could turn out to be exactly the wrong decision.
And they may have done just that, by slipping in a signature into the millions of machines running Microsoft Security Essentials, looking for the droppings of the exploit even when they haven't found the actual hole.
They may have known it wasn't being widely exploited (Eric Romang didn't discover it till Sept 17), just because they were not getting hits in MSE, and had time to seek a complete patch.
Wrong in so many ways..
For one, you assume that only one person discovered or knows about the flaw, that same person is a "good" person and not using the flaw to their advantage for hacking/cracking, and the only other people they told about it was MS.
And you assume announcing a flaw well before you have a fix in hand won't send two thousand hackers rushing in to try to exploit it.
Or maybe you think all hackers are honorable and wouldn't try to exploit something they read about but for which there is no current fix?
Do you even read the shit you post?
Look, there is no such thing as a defect free product. Does not exist in any realm.
Given that, an instant recall of any product subsequently found to have a defect would shut down commerce totally. It would be completely unworkable in the real world. Its nothing about returning shareholder value. Its about keeping civilization running WHILE you fix infrastructure instead of running screaming back into the cave every time you discover a loose screw on a cabinet door.
Complex systems are complex to fix. But they work. Bugs and all. They hang together.
Loose axle bolts on a pickup truck, or an obscure vulnerability in a browser. 99.9999% of the users will not encounter the problem, and when they do the vast majority of them will not get hurt.
However, everybody gets hurt when idealists rush in, order all IE9 users to cease and desist using it, and all pickup trucks owners to park them until a fix is found. Its ridiculous.
Further, You can't "quash" anything these days. Don't even go there.
Bugs get fixed in order of priority. Triage. Look it up some time.
I work in the field and can say there's tons of researchers who submit these flaws. Not all of them can be fixed instantly, and in some instances (like this) fixing them could actually create hints for hackers to use and exploit. That's why it's often better to be silent about them and make a fix ready in case they are publicly exploited. One of the worst case scenarios is if you patch something with huge notes about it and the hackers find out about the flaw that way. .
The summary makes it seem like Microsoft did something underhanded by attributing the bug report to a source that pre-dates the publishing by Eric Romang.
All this says is TippingPoint Zero Day Initiative acted responsibly, and Romang didn't.
As for how long it took, one can't make any judgement with no idea of the scope of the problem, or the testing they had to do in order to make sure the fix was proper, and didn't hurt anything else, and worked on every variety of their platform, the number of parts of the system needing the patch, etc.
Nor can we be positive that temporary measures may have been put in place until a formal patch was found, (such as a signature added to Security Essentials and shared with other security companies).
The last thing you want to do is announce you have a patch coming before you really have a patch in hand.
When the Government holds more Helium than all other sources combined, and starts selling it below production cost, it takes a total idiot to blame any part of that on the free market.
What Free market? The government killed off the free market in helium in the 30s.
Mostly agreed.
But if y watch their rubbish carefully you will find that they really only used a small portion (repetitively) so your point about "portion" is strengthened.
This isn't worth the effort. Nobody is going to the clown work for an educational video.
I was wondering - couldn't we do fusion reactors, which involve protium & deuterium, and produce He-3 that way? We'd have plenty of supply for the baloons
There is no shortage of Helium.
Nor is it particularly hard to extract.
The problem is that the US government had pretty much cornered the market on the gas, and then decided Blimps were not it its future, and started selling off the entire (enormous) reserve at below market prices. Soon this inventory will be exhausted, and production will resume by private industry just as it was done in the 30s.
This is strictly a manufactured shortage, due to a quirk of history. There is no more real shortage of Helium gas on earth than there ever was.
So until Apple does redesign the clock, a world wide ban on shipments is in order, right?
WWAD?
(What Would Apple Do?)
Yeah. This article struck me as particularly whiny. 30 Nuclear Power Plants! The horror.
It's almost like they want you to read a paper newspaper or something.
I question virtually ALL the claims in the story.
Its nonsense of the highest order, with no research to back it up. Do you see Google or Amazon publishing utilization rates of server farms?
Do you see Amazon or Google or any cloud provider having problems paying the power bill?
Did they not say that "Data Center providers are finding that they can't rack servers fast enough to provide for users' needs"?
If the power bill is paid, what is the problem?
Why isn't the harm done to the world's resources (and society in general) by publishing the New York Time evaluated?
Nancy Nielsen, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said only the limited supply of recycled paper constrained the company from using more of it. She said 6.5 percent of the newsprint used by the company contained recycled fibers.
...
''The inventory of waste newspaper is at an all-time record high,'' said J. Rodney Edwards, a spokesman for the American Paper Institute, a trade organization. ''Mills and paper dealers have in their warehouses over one million tons of newspapers, which represents a third of a year's production. There comes a point when the warehouse space will be completely filled.''
Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.
Just let it go.
So what if they use your video with their own message, anyone searching for your subject matter won't find theirs and will find yours instead.
Further, since your's is only 3 minutes, and theirs is 5 and mostly composed of their bullshit, using only a small part of your video (over and over again) they may well believe they are within the boundaries of fair use. (Comedic parody comes to mind).
However, if you want to fight it....
They probably have no more money than you do to pursue this.
The next step under the DMCA is to file suit. Once you have evidence of a lawsuit file, you can have YouTube take it down permanantly pending the outcome of the case.
Preparation legal fees probably amount to some small amount of lawyer fees (mostly rubber stamped document preparation) in some obscure court where you can pay some small lawyer office to go to court on the appointed day and win a summary judgement by default because these clowns will not show up. Shop around to neighborhood lawyers and you will find one hungry enough to do the paper work for you. They don't have to be good, or experienced, because these clowns are not going to show up or even answer your suit.
Wrong.
Less arable land is in use for farming today than any other time in the last 100 years. Do some research instead of spouting dogma.
App.net runs afoul of my "first in place" theory of incrimentally improved replacemts for existing entrenched internet services.
No matter how bad Twitter, Facebook, or [insert object of your rath] are, they will remain in place until some new facility arrives with a fundamentally different and novel approach.
We are stuck with twitter for the next ten years. It may evolve, and lose the 140 byte limit, but the idea of announcing, to the world at large, that you are having tacos for lunch somehow appeals to a lot of self absorbed people, and won't be displaced by a similar service.