I have a box full of 5 inch floppies, but no disk drive in any of my machines can read theses. Does that mean they are unreadable (ignoring the obviously coffee stained ones)?
It is strictly a cost/benefit calculation. Its not worth anyone's time and effort to assemble the old mainframe gear necessary to read these tapes. The gear all exists.
TFA is about cherishing biases of our memory... We don't remember, we are hardly aware of those types of artifacts which disappeared.
Exactly.
Those tools from long ago which are no longer in use have passed into history without being recorded. They probably weren't very good to begin with, and were quickly replaced by something else.
A trip through a tool museum would reveal many tools found over the ages that are no longer used, or even made, and some museums have artifacts they are hard pressed to even suggest a use for. The fact that these exist and are used for teaching seems at best a disingenuous use of the concept of being "in use".
How many times have we read about NASA tapes and such from early missions where the hardware to read them has long since disappeared, and no one is even sure what format the tapes are in?
You've read it, but that does not make it true. These tapes can be read by gear still available on the salvage market or in museums. (The tapes themselves may have deteriorated over time, but that's a different issue).
NASA may no longer have the gear, but somebody does somewhere.
Yeah, poorly configured and managed firewalls can't handle a big DDoS attack. Duh, neither could a poorly configured server of any kind (eg. web server or whatever).
Nothing to see here.
Nothing you can afford can handle a "Big DDOS attack".
No need to pick nits about how it is managed or configured.
But I suspect anyone unconcerned about disposing of their delivery boy (to say nothing of the target) would have no qualms about throwing a cheap/stolen phone in the river.
The list would accomplish nothing, but having civil recourse as a victim would make fun reading. Especially since every report to congress (even if two years late) is a defacto admission. No law suit should be necessary, just send the check.
Providing public transportation "readily available in most areas" is the perfect definition of "costing an arm and a leg". This only works in dense urban areas.
A Findlaw article suggests that Falling Asleep, is much more prevalent than most people know. NHTSA estimates that as many as 100,000 accidents each year are caused by fatigued drivers, resulting in 1550 deaths, more than 40,000 injuries.
Yet this pales in comparison to distracted driving. In 2008, distracted driving accidents resulted in 6000 deaths and more than 500,000 injuries. (Not all distractions are cell phone related, but you would never learn that from the press).
So I hate to see solutions like skin alcohol sensors proposed when they are so easily defeated by gloves or simply wiping ones hands. Especially when it won't detect the "one for the road" drivers, where alcohol has not yet even reached their fingertips. It trivializes the problem. I firmly believe that People who are not "OK to drive" always know it, or always suspect it. A device that guesses alcohol content simply provides an excuse for people who marginally should not drive, and provides no deterrent to those who intend to drive anyway.
Connecticut is a political agency, and has no law allowing them to keep this information secret. Tax, medical, and financial data is all that most states have statutory authority to keep secret.
Has Connecticut ever revealed publicly the nature or existence of data that came into their possession by accident? NO. Has Google? Yes.
Who's more accountable?
What part about being dragged thru court in every country on earth AFTER PUBLICLY FESSING UP do you consider unaccountable?
This has been asked and answered a thousand times on the net.
Why weigh in with this now, when doing so reveals you are willfully ignorant of the situation?
A simple programming error recorded all packets instead of just beacon packets. Period. End of Story. Google noticed it, reported it, and made no use of it. The actual content has been validated by other agencies, but not by being given wholesale access to it.
The cars drive by at about 25mph, or highway speeds in rural areas. The amount you can get when you are within range of any given router at that speed amounts to mere seconds.
The chance of someone getting any usable data other than beacon data is totally eliminated by running proper encryption.
Turning someone's accidentally sniffed passwords over to State Government buffoons is the height of stupidity. This simply compounds the problem. It effectively places it all in the public domain, since is is not medical, tax, or banking information, which is all most states are allowed to protect.
I'm glad Google stood its ground. I'm incensed government asked for that data.
Mostly people who don't know enough to properly put the password into their laptops but can somehow figure out how to turn the default encryption off. A
No, the union of those two sets defines the null set. No one smart enough to connect to their router and turn off encryption is also too dumb to enter a password in windows or mac. I simply don't believe these people exist.
If routers were not shipped with encryption OFF by default this would never happen. If Geeks trying to solve problems for friends and relatives didn't resort to turning off encryption as their first diagnostic step this would never happen. If routers would only work for an hour with encryption off this would never happen. If routers came with a bright label (removable) on the bottom with a randomly assigned password this problem wouldn't happen.
This tendency to run with no encryption is due almost solely to the fact most routers are shipped that way.
Slashdot Mirror
When DDOS attacks look like legitimate web hits, blackhole routing can only be used on networks that do not include web servers.
There's still that "you can afford" bit.....
You start getting DDosed and the bill from your CDN will send you into hiding.
I have a box full of 5 inch floppies, but no disk drive in any of my machines can read theses.
Does that mean they are unreadable (ignoring the obviously coffee stained ones)?
It is strictly a cost/benefit calculation. Its not worth anyone's time and effort to assemble the old
mainframe gear necessary to read these tapes. The gear all exists.
YOU != Amazon
TFA is about cherishing biases of our memory... We don't remember, we are hardly aware of those types of artifacts which disappeared.
Exactly.
Those tools from long ago which are no longer in use have passed into history without being recorded.
They probably weren't very good to begin with, and were quickly replaced by something else.
A trip through a tool museum would reveal many tools found over the ages that are no longer used, or
even made, and some museums have artifacts they are hard pressed to even suggest a use for.
The fact that these exist and are used for teaching seems at best a disingenuous use of the
concept of being "in use".
Examples include those found here: http://www.davistownmuseum.org/PDFsforInventory/WebVIIinteractiveCollection_PDF.pdf
some of which look close enough to current tools to just lump them in with similar objects
so as to dismiss them from interfering with their pet theory.
There are entire web sites dedicated to this, such as http://www.farmcollector.com/equipment/tools/old-farm-tools-what-is-it-july-2010.aspx
To say many/any of these are still in use stretches the meaning of STILL and IN USE.
How many times have we read about NASA tapes and such from early missions where the hardware to read them has long since disappeared, and no one is even sure what format the tapes are in?
You've read it, but that does not make it true.
These tapes can be read by gear still available on the salvage market or in museums. (The tapes themselves may have deteriorated over time, but that's a different issue).
NASA may no longer have the gear, but somebody does somewhere.
Yeah, poorly configured and managed firewalls can't handle a big DDoS attack. Duh, neither could a poorly configured server of any kind (eg. web server or whatever).
Nothing to see here.
Nothing you can afford can handle a "Big DDOS attack".
No need to pick nits about how it is managed or configured.
But I suspect anyone unconcerned about disposing of their delivery boy (to say nothing of the target) would have no qualms about throwing a cheap/stolen phone in the river.
http://www.easydesksoftware.com/news/news17.htm
English is fluid. Verbing the language is mainstream.
The list would accomplish nothing, but having civil recourse as a victim would make fun reading.
Especially since every report to congress (even if two years late) is a defacto admission. No law suit should be necessary, just send the check.
Providing public transportation "readily available in most areas" is the perfect definition of "costing an arm and a leg".
This only works in dense urban areas.
A Findlaw article suggests that Falling Asleep, is much more prevalent than most people know. NHTSA estimates that as many as 100,000 accidents each year are caused by fatigued drivers, resulting in 1550 deaths, more than 40,000 injuries.
Yet this pales in comparison to distracted driving. In 2008, distracted driving accidents resulted in 6000 deaths and more than 500,000 injuries. (Not all distractions are cell phone related, but you would never learn that from the press).
That, in turn, is nothing compared to an estimated 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2009. (32% of all traffic deaths).
So I hate to see solutions like skin alcohol sensors proposed when they are so easily defeated by gloves or simply wiping ones hands. Especially when it won't detect the "one for the road" drivers, where alcohol has not yet even reached their fingertips. It trivializes the problem. I firmly believe that People who are not "OK to drive" always know it, or always suspect it. A device that guesses alcohol content simply provides an excuse for people who marginally should not drive, and provides no deterrent to those who intend to drive anyway.
Can this system detect the difference because my car just overheated and I spilled cool and all over my hands.
I presume you meant Spilled Coolant. (I've seen people who oozed cool, but none that spilled it.).
Not being a chemist, I'm not sure if Ethylene glycol or Propylene glycol is detected as alcohol or not.
You may have meant windshield washer fluid, which often contains methanol. Methanol is seldom used for engine coolant
additives any more.
Its pretty simple not to drink and drive.
To error is human.
To really foul things up, you need a computer.
My fingers get cold. I drive with gloves, at least till the car warms up.
I imagine drunk drivers would do the same.
Do once. Done.
Connecticut is a political agency, and has no law allowing them to keep this information secret.
Tax, medical, and financial data is all that most states have statutory authority to keep secret.
Has Connecticut ever revealed publicly the nature or existence of data that came into their possession by accident? NO.
Has Google? Yes.
Who's more accountable?
What part about being dragged thru court in every country on earth AFTER PUBLICLY FESSING UP do you consider unaccountable?
This has been asked and answered a thousand times on the net.
Why weigh in with this now, when doing so reveals you are willfully ignorant of the situation?
A simple programming error recorded all packets instead of just beacon packets. Period. End of Story.
Google noticed it, reported it, and made no use of it. The actual content has been validated by
other agencies, but not by being given wholesale access to it.
The cars drive by at about 25mph, or highway speeds in rural areas. The amount you can get
when you are within range of any given router at that speed amounts to mere seconds.
The chance of someone getting any usable data other than beacon data is totally eliminated by running proper encryption.
Sure that might happen. When pigs fly.
Blumenthal would be prohibited from destroying it by law. Its evidence once its in his hands.
And when the next level of government demands it? Will Blumenthal say No?
Exactly.
Turning someone's accidentally sniffed passwords over to State Government buffoons is the height of stupidity. This simply compounds the problem. It effectively places it all in the public domain, since is is not medical, tax, or banking information, which is all most states are allowed to protect.
I'm glad Google stood its ground. I'm incensed government asked for that data.
Mostly people who don't know enough to properly put the password into their laptops but can somehow figure out how to turn the default encryption off. A
No, the union of those two sets defines the null set. No one smart enough to connect to their router and turn off encryption is also too dumb to enter a password in windows or mac. I simply don't believe these people exist.
If routers were not shipped with encryption OFF by default this would never happen.
If Geeks trying to solve problems for friends and relatives didn't resort to turning off encryption as their first diagnostic step this would never happen.
If routers would only work for an hour with encryption off this would never happen.
If routers came with a bright label (removable) on the bottom with a randomly assigned password this problem wouldn't happen.
This tendency to run with no encryption is due almost solely to the fact most routers are shipped that way.
Maybe this could be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network
A wireless mesh network (WMN) is a communications network made up of radio nodes organized in a mesh topology.
Unlike some countries, the US does not have enough police and they don't have enough technicians to do that sort of thing.
Actually if you read TFA you will see it was introduced last year, and sailed though its first committee.