No, you can't believe everything, but if you check the sources you can classify it as being acceptably reliable or not.
The web contains a great deal of information but you still need a search engine to deal with it - like Google. Unfortunately - or luckily - Google does filter out some pages with insecure and/or inappropriate content. This is of course negative for some researchers but positive for most people on the net.
And it's never wrong to double-check the information provided. It may be correct, but there may be opposite views too.
What NSA can do is analyze communication patterns to see if two suspects addresses the same site and possibly the same page and are making posts. If that's on twitter or on slashdot or whatever doesn't matter.
They may be able to prove some relation if that is a repeated pattern and that the posts seems to be containing out of context information.
Maybe NSA is scanning for all "off-topic" replies at slashdot to get their hands on information.
To actually decrypt data takes a lot more because it requires context to get to the key to decode the message. And even if the message is decoded it won't say anything unless you know the semantics. The Navajo code-talkers of WWII were really annoying for Japan since they not only had to know the Navajo language but also know the semantics for what they were talking about. What does "egg" mean in reality - is it a grenade or a bomb?
And short messages are the trickiest messages to crack. Is there a deeper meaning in "Elvis has left the building", or is that just a non-information message.
Just tag on a random quote to a message but avoid certain quotes that does have a meaning that you already have shared with your peers and it's all set. Funny stories have also evolved over time and sometimes it's an Irish lighthouse sometimes it's a Canadian lighthouse involved. Take your pick and you end up into the gray area of inconsistent and hard to track evidence.
So the most effective work is the classic stakeouts together with hidden microphones and possible also cameras. Hard classic detective work. What you really can do is to use computers to coordinate all the data today and make patterns. When a pattern changes a flag can be raised. And don't forget that the general public occasionally actually can give extra input, but there is often a lot of noise in that where weirdos also calls in their share.
Another thing is shopping patterns, but you can't track down on every farmer that purchases fertilizer. That would just be a huge waste of resources. And even the combination of fertilizer and timers in the same purchase may be completely valid, even though that may be cause for a tad more concern.
Just realize that the job of capturing terrorists isn't easy and the best way to be safe is to avoid things that motivates them. Sure - there will always be a few, but those are the real wackos - somewhat like the Una Bomber. And NSA wouldn't have been much help there.
And maybe the real problem is that the body needs a certain amount of lithium to be stable, but some people need it more than other due to genetic predisposition.
And if we get it through water or through food is a different issue. One contributing fact can also be that we use pure sodium chloride in our cooking instead of a mix of salts where lithium and potassium also are present.
But it's probably best to avoid chewing on those LiIon batteries. But eating vegetables seems to be a good idea.
So maybe it's time to accept the fact that cameras are everywhere and drop the camera ban in many places.
Only very few occasions exists where a camera shouldn't be used. And even the cameras in laptops are often hard to aim at anything else than the person reading the screen.
If someone really wanted to bring a camera they could probably do it anyway - disguised as something completely different. Just a suit with a lot of bling buttons will completely mess up the X-ray devices. Or hack an asthma inhaler.
Minix did get an reputation of being unstable some 20 years ago, but of course - much have happened since then.
The more interesting thing is that Minix has a different architecture than Linux using a microkernel. This is in some ways a good idea, even if it also have disadvantages.
It depends on the situation and the reason for the cable.
Sometimes there are restrictions for routing the cable that makes a prefabricated cable unusable.
And you may sometimes run into problems with a handmade cable, but often it does work just fine. If you get problems - just remake one contact at a time. If you have a decently modern intelligent switch you can also monitor the port for data errors, and if you don't have any errors it's good enough.
As for cabling quality - all the outlets in buildings are usually contacted by the cable jocks from the installation company and they do a simple test and then moves on to the next. I doubt that the quality from a hand made cable and those outlets are much different.
Spreading the pictures was a bad thing if that wasn't sanctioned by the parents, but the "I'm alive" message was completely uncalled for and extremely rude. That poster sure only deserves contempt and should get a big public fledgling because that's one of the things that you shouldn't do.
Publishing doesn't mean that they are sold or played on the radio.
Last thing by Prince I heard on the radio was probably "Purple Rain". I still haven't connected Patti Labelle to anything remarkable when it comes to music. And I'm pretty sure that she isn't played on the radio often - at least here.
The usual method of a bot is to use the same bot against a single site for several repeated attempts, so that reasoning doesn't hold.
There may be another bot in the net that targets that site, but then that bot may run the same logic or similar logic. This since the nodes in the bot net aren't doing communication between each other otherwise the traffic for control would be horrible.
So your reasoning doesn't hold.
And I didn't claim perfectness, just another spanner in the works of spam bots that will slow them down.
Who will know who Britney Spears was some 20 years from now? I suspect that most people aren't even aware that it was her music that was played.
She is known for other things than music and when her possible sex appeal has diminished she will (luckily?) be forgotten.
There are way too many teenage band/performers around that are disappearing quickly in history.
And how many remember "Carl Anderson and Gloria Loring" who made place 13 at the top list of 1986? Or "Patti Labelle and Michael McDonald" that made number 4? I had to look it up.
Someone more known is Gloria Estefan, but nothing of importance has been heard from her in a lot of years either.
Very few has the potential of Madonna to really make a statement and tell people to F off when necessary.
Then we have those real weird guys Michael Jackson and Prince (a.k.a. The Symbol and whatever) that may have made popular music once, but now are just living on old accomplishments. And they are mostly known today by their statements and/or their looks.
Copyright should at best be related to the death of the performer - like at most 5 years after the death of the performer. This to avoid weird situations where someone dies during recording or soon after and also to make sure that funeral costs may be paid.
As for movies with several actors - the last one will die eventually.
And also make sure that copyright can only be held by a person and not a company or other organization.
And last - no copyright for works that are related to a religion.
The ability to drain money from people for some old creation that already has made the bulk of money is just annoying and disgusting.
OK, it may cause some sick situations where a company can keep someone "alive" for several years just to get their dirty hands on copyright money!
Aren't many of those things like captchas circumvented by a trial and error methodology?
What if you get three tries and then a blacklisted IP address? Not that the poster will realize that it's blacklisted, just that the tries to crack the captcha won't work, even if it's the correct answer.
You can use a knife for cooking, mugging or for police action.
But the more problematic criminals are also the ones that are most likely to be aware of this and be careful with what and who they trust.
And the most careful persons in organized crime have sometimes only been relying on trusted messengers that have been doing all their communication. That to avoid wiretaps.
And it may be something that we may see in other cars too, but using items from nature in our cars isn't really new.
Up until the late 60's most material in our cars like seats and carpets were of material from nature. Coconut fibers were common, but that was replaced by foam material.
Of course - it's the combination of material that's new and taken to a new level.
And even more interesting is the sentence compared to many other crimes that you can get convicted for in Sweden.
As for a case where a driver killed someone while DUI at 0.15% - Five months in prison. So it seems like it's a lot better to drive drunk and kill people than to run a search engine for torrent downloads.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't believe everything, but if you check the sources you can classify it as being acceptably reliable or not.
The web contains a great deal of information but you still need a search engine to deal with it - like Google. Unfortunately - or luckily - Google does filter out some pages with insecure and/or inappropriate content. This is of course negative for some researchers but positive for most people on the net.
And it's never wrong to double-check the information provided. It may be correct, but there may be opposite views too.
What NSA can do is analyze communication patterns to see if two suspects addresses the same site and possibly the same page and are making posts. If that's on twitter or on slashdot or whatever doesn't matter.
They may be able to prove some relation if that is a repeated pattern and that the posts seems to be containing out of context information.
Maybe NSA is scanning for all "off-topic" replies at slashdot to get their hands on information.
To actually decrypt data takes a lot more because it requires context to get to the key to decode the message. And even if the message is decoded it won't say anything unless you know the semantics. The Navajo code-talkers of WWII were really annoying for Japan since they not only had to know the Navajo language but also know the semantics for what they were talking about. What does "egg" mean in reality - is it a grenade or a bomb?
And short messages are the trickiest messages to crack. Is there a deeper meaning in "Elvis has left the building", or is that just a non-information message.
Just tag on a random quote to a message but avoid certain quotes that does have a meaning that you already have shared with your peers and it's all set. Funny stories have also evolved over time and sometimes it's an Irish lighthouse sometimes it's a Canadian lighthouse involved. Take your pick and you end up into the gray area of inconsistent and hard to track evidence.
So the most effective work is the classic stakeouts together with hidden microphones and possible also cameras. Hard classic detective work. What you really can do is to use computers to coordinate all the data today and make patterns. When a pattern changes a flag can be raised. And don't forget that the general public occasionally actually can give extra input, but there is often a lot of noise in that where weirdos also calls in their share.
Another thing is shopping patterns, but you can't track down on every farmer that purchases fertilizer. That would just be a huge waste of resources. And even the combination of fertilizer and timers in the same purchase may be completely valid, even though that may be cause for a tad more concern.
Just realize that the job of capturing terrorists isn't easy and the best way to be safe is to avoid things that motivates them. Sure - there will always be a few, but those are the real wackos - somewhat like the Una Bomber. And NSA wouldn't have been much help there.
I was just purely noticing the futility in blocking cameras in courts and other places today when you have camera devices everywhere.
It's not the one that you see that gets you.
And maybe the real problem is that the body needs a certain amount of lithium to be stable, but some people need it more than other due to genetic predisposition.
And if we get it through water or through food is a different issue. One contributing fact can also be that we use pure sodium chloride in our cooking instead of a mix of salts where lithium and potassium also are present.
But it's probably best to avoid chewing on those LiIon batteries. But eating vegetables seems to be a good idea.
So maybe it's time to accept the fact that cameras are everywhere and drop the camera ban in many places.
Only very few occasions exists where a camera shouldn't be used. And even the cameras in laptops are often hard to aim at anything else than the person reading the screen.
If someone really wanted to bring a camera they could probably do it anyway - disguised as something completely different. Just a suit with a lot of bling buttons will completely mess up the X-ray devices. Or hack an asthma inhaler.
I have had 100Mbps for years now... That single megabit won't make any difference.
Minix did get an reputation of being unstable some 20 years ago, but of course - much have happened since then.
The more interesting thing is that Minix has a different architecture than Linux using a microkernel. This is in some ways a good idea, even if it also have disadvantages.
It depends on the situation and the reason for the cable.
Sometimes there are restrictions for routing the cable that makes a prefabricated cable unusable.
And you may sometimes run into problems with a handmade cable, but often it does work just fine. If you get problems - just remake one contact at a time. If you have a decently modern intelligent switch you can also monitor the port for data errors, and if you don't have any errors it's good enough.
As for cabling quality - all the outlets in buildings are usually contacted by the cable jocks from the installation company and they do a simple test and then moves on to the next. I doubt that the quality from a hand made cable and those outlets are much different.
They are only trying to get free commercial time on TV for their products.
This is a case where all publicity is good publicity - even if the case fails in court it may be cheaper than buying commercial time on TV.
Spreading the pictures was a bad thing if that wasn't sanctioned by the parents, but the "I'm alive" message was completely uncalled for and extremely rude. That poster sure only deserves contempt and should get a big public fledgling because that's one of the things that you shouldn't do.
Publishing doesn't mean that they are sold or played on the radio.
Last thing by Prince I heard on the radio was probably "Purple Rain". I still haven't connected Patti Labelle to anything remarkable when it comes to music. And I'm pretty sure that she isn't played on the radio often - at least here.
Reality is different - history has shown us far too many persons that have died poor and money earned first after their death.
Just because I gave an example of a person not widely known until after death doesn't mean that all figures has to match for that person.
You mean that the performer will be murdered to avoid the need for paying copyright fee?
Some performers aren't recognized until they have died - like Franz Kafka.
The usual method of a bot is to use the same bot against a single site for several repeated attempts, so that reasoning doesn't hold.
There may be another bot in the net that targets that site, but then that bot may run the same logic or similar logic. This since the nodes in the bot net aren't doing communication between each other otherwise the traffic for control would be horrible.
So your reasoning doesn't hold.
And I didn't claim perfectness, just another spanner in the works of spam bots that will slow them down.
Who will know who Britney Spears was some 20 years from now? I suspect that most people aren't even aware that it was her music that was played.
She is known for other things than music and when her possible sex appeal has diminished she will (luckily?) be forgotten.
There are way too many teenage band/performers around that are disappearing quickly in history.
And how many remember "Carl Anderson and Gloria Loring" who made place 13 at the top list of 1986? Or "Patti Labelle and Michael McDonald" that made number 4? I had to look it up.
Someone more known is Gloria Estefan, but nothing of importance has been heard from her in a lot of years either.
Very few has the potential of Madonna to really make a statement and tell people to F off when necessary.
Then we have those real weird guys Michael Jackson and Prince (a.k.a. The Symbol and whatever) that may have made popular music once, but now are just living on old accomplishments. And they are mostly known today by their statements and/or their looks.
Copyright should at best be related to the death of the performer - like at most 5 years after the death of the performer. This to avoid weird situations where someone dies during recording or soon after and also to make sure that funeral costs may be paid.
As for movies with several actors - the last one will die eventually.
And also make sure that copyright can only be held by a person and not a company or other organization.
And last - no copyright for works that are related to a religion.
The ability to drain money from people for some old creation that already has made the bulk of money is just annoying and disgusting.
OK, it may cause some sick situations where a company can keep someone "alive" for several years just to get their dirty hands on copyright money!
That's assuming the botnet is targeting a single site or only a few sites.
Aren't many of those things like captchas circumvented by a trial and error methodology?
What if you get three tries and then a blacklisted IP address? Not that the poster will realize that it's blacklisted, just that the tries to crack the captcha won't work, even if it's the correct answer.
It cuts both ways.
You can use a knife for cooking, mugging or for police action.
But the more problematic criminals are also the ones that are most likely to be aware of this and be careful with what and who they trust.
And the most careful persons in organized crime have sometimes only been relying on trusted messengers that have been doing all their communication. That to avoid wiretaps.
And it may be something that we may see in other cars too, but using items from nature in our cars isn't really new.
Up until the late 60's most material in our cars like seats and carpets were of material from nature. Coconut fibers were common, but that was replaced by foam material.
Of course - it's the combination of material that's new and taken to a new level.
Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.
So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.
That's why they started work on the Falcon engine.
And also consider that Oracle also has the Sleepycat Berkeley DB engine, which you really have to know where to find to get.
And they also have the old Digital database engine.
Their method is to acquire competitors and then slowly decrease development and avoid promoting the products. Then the products can silently die.
But I wonder if they haven't bitten into something a bit too hard to bite into this time...
And even more interesting is the sentence compared to many other crimes that you can get convicted for in Sweden.
As for a case where a driver killed someone while DUI at 0.15% - Five months in prison. So it seems like it's a lot better to drive drunk and kill people than to run a search engine for torrent downloads.