A quick on-line search show a spindle of fifty 50GB Blu-Ray discs (2.5 TB) retails for about $100. A 4TB HDD costs about $140. So HDD is actually cheaper per byte of storage.
The initial hardware is cheaper with HDDs. Operational overhead might be entirely different. An HDD needs to be plugged in all the time (consuming power) while a Blu-Ray (or DVD for that matter) does not. Also, an infrequently accessed Blu-Ray, stored properly, is likely to have a much longer shelf-life than a drive that is always powered up, leading to lower overhead in the form of replacement/recovery costs.
Not to mention there are things available by torrent I could not buy if I wanted to. For examples: 1) Linux-native Half-Life 2 that doesn't require Steam. 2) Windows 7 that can be installed to, from, or run from a USB flash drive. If these corps would stop slinging artificially crippled tech I'd pay for it.
When the corporations can provide me with a superior product I might decide to pay them. But right now, I have a native copy of HL2 for Linux that doesn't require Steam. I have copies of just about every version of Windows which can be installed to and run from flash drives. Neither of these things can be legally purchased. When "they" stop artificially crippling technology I might pay them for it. Of course, I'll probably have my own army of open source killbots by then.
The issue here is that our youth are not learning how to learn. Core teaches them several very specific things and often gives our youth the impresssion that nothing else is necessary. Core does not teach our youth to question and test the validity of information. We are teaching them rote memorization. Yet, we excpect new ideas and innovation?
Right now, it appears some of the revenue from traffic fines pays for the detectives investigating theft, arson, fraud, missing persons, murder, hunting with out a license, public urination, vandalism, and so on.
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
Parent is right, a $1000 transportation tax would be terrible for poor people. I have poor neighbors who can't even afford a junker that costs $1000, let alone an extra tax on top.
I see this "problem" as an admission that police are profitting from crime. The idea that less crime is a bad thing is absurd, especially when the reason is police won't make as much money. Cutting revenue from traffic citations may lead to a reduction in over-policing and the ability for small departments to spend money on things they don't need. When I say things they don't need, I mean things like the military surplus armored personnel carrier my hometown (population ~5000) just bought a couple years ago. Need I mention, they use it when it's totally unecessary (boys with toys).
Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.
That is like saying the mafia may quietly pretend to have the power to shut down your business if you don't do what they want. While the NSA may not have the authority, on paper, they certainly have the ability to press the issue by "extralegal" means and have verifiably done so in the past.
Why should we replace personal responsibility with technology? A person, at least for now, can make a better judgment than a machine. It is true accidents with guns happen, especially involving children. A toddler picking up a gun and shooting somebody is easily prevented by keeping the gun away from the toddler. If we're going to do anything "smart" with our firearms, I agree with the previous poster who mentioned adding cameras to guns.
On another note, a firearm is so easy to make that anyone with very basic machining tools can make an AK-47 in their garage. If over-the-counter guns start to become less user-friendly more people will start making their own guns or buying "homebrew" weapons from sketchy sources.
For example on a CentOS system you might allow your webserver to make outgoing SMTP connections via something fun like this: "iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --cmd-owner httpd --dest-port 25 -j ACCEPT". (Why CentOS? Because it matches the command against HTTPD. On Debian systems the webserver process is more typically called 'apache2'.)
The cmd-owner match was removed in kernel 2.6.14 because it was broken with SMP.
The parent poster is correct. Windows and Linux are totally different animals in regards to firewalls. There is only one firewall for Linux and it is built into the system. IPTables is how the firewall is configured. All other tools are just front-ends or wrappers for IPTables.
IPTables doesn't have support for application-based firewalling. You can do that kind of thing using something lilke the Grsecurity patch for the kernel, but it is not for beginners.
Grsecurity will let you create policies exactly like what you're talking about and then some. For example, it will allow you to create a policy limiting which files and folders a given program can access. To be specific, on my machine I have a policy that Firefox can only write data to it's own folders and to my Downloads directory, and can't execute/run any files inside those folders. That way, if somebody hits me with a drive-by download or something it simply won't work.
It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
Does it really matter whose "fault" something is? Discrimination based on assumptions, regardless of the basis, should certainly be illegal. However, discrimination based on objective, observable things shouldn't be. For example, it should be illegal to discriminate against potential employees based on ethnicity. It should not be illegal to discriminate against people with a measurably low IQ when the job can be shown to require a higher IQ. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter that a person's intelligence quotient isn't exactly their fault.
This information was on a public webserver without any type of authentication. If a large company like AT&T is irresponsibly handling customer data in this way the public should absolutely be informed immediately. Mr. Aurenheimer could have handled the situation better, but I do not think his actions should be criminalized at this level. Did he endanger people by blowing a whistle? Yes. Did he compromise a secure computer system to do so? No. IMHO this should fall more under "creating a panic" or something.
Wake me when American military hackers are targeting Chinese civilians.
Is it so hard to believe that something like that may actually be happening already? Afterall, many of the operations conducted by our intelligence agencies (namely the CIA) are aimed at people many would consider civilians.
If I'm a national intelligence service and I want to create a botnet for military purposes, I also want to have plausible deniability. So, I construct my botnet the same general way criminals do. I hijack civilian computers, I purchase services through stolen credentials and fake ID's, etc.
Or maybe they hacked our Internets and burned down our firewall? Seriously, IP spoofing is not as useful as the movies make it out to be.
Spoofing IPs is easy, but it's only effective in a few situations, such as when you're sending a message with no expectation of a reply (e.g. spam e-mail, DDoS attack, etc.). If you're trying to break into someone's system, you need to be able to get a response back, and that means providing an IP address you can be reached at to your target. Now, you may try to anonymize your IP address somehow, such as through the use of proxies, VPNs, and other such technologies that can allow you to hide behind or within someone else's system, or you may spoof an IP address of a zombie computer you control and can use to route return packets to you, but at some point, an IP address you control needs to be provided to someone else, otherwise you have no way of getting back a response, and that address can be traced.
I think the point still stands that it's possible for an attack to appear to originate from a location different from where it actually did. What is to stop someone from using a hijacked wifi access point to attack servers in, let's say France, and then use those French servers to launch attacks on Australian businesses?
I have personally witnessed an attack where computers owned by an American company were infected with a persistent agent designed to infect computers in a specific business in China (during a visit of the American execs to the Chinese location), for the purpose of then using the hijacked Chinese computers to conduct industrial espionage against another American company which also conducted business with that Chinese company. The actual attackers were neither American nor Chinese.
I often wonder how the origin of all of these attacks is determined without actually tracking down the culprits. In today's world it is simple to stage an attack seeming to originate from anywhere in the world.
How do you know China isn't simply counting a hacked home box sitting on a cable connection as a governmental hack?
Perhaps we should be asking the same of our government? Whose to say that many of these "Chinese hackers" we keep hearing about aren't, in fact, hackers from elsewhere using compromised machines on Chinese networks?
The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.
In addition to that, many people fail to realize that sentencing modifications made in a plea bargain are generally not binding. The prosecution can recommend whatever, but the actual sentence is entirely up to the judge.
If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.
Part of what is being protested here is the legal system itself and the (often) ridiculous sentences it doles out. Yes, activists should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, but should not be expected to be quiet about them.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick on-line search show a spindle of fifty 50GB Blu-Ray discs (2.5 TB) retails for about $100. A 4TB HDD costs about $140. So HDD is actually cheaper per byte of storage.
The initial hardware is cheaper with HDDs. Operational overhead might be entirely different. An HDD needs to be plugged in all the time (consuming power) while a Blu-Ray (or DVD for that matter) does not. Also, an infrequently accessed Blu-Ray, stored properly, is likely to have a much longer shelf-life than a drive that is always powered up, leading to lower overhead in the form of replacement/recovery costs.
Not to mention there are things available by torrent I could not buy if I wanted to. For examples: 1) Linux-native Half-Life 2 that doesn't require Steam. 2) Windows 7 that can be installed to, from, or run from a USB flash drive. If these corps would stop slinging artificially crippled tech I'd pay for it.
Nah, you just need another voodoo chicken! Damn kids...
When the corporations can provide me with a superior product I might decide to pay them. But right now, I have a native copy of HL2 for Linux that doesn't require Steam. I have copies of just about every version of Windows which can be installed to and run from flash drives. Neither of these things can be legally purchased. When "they" stop artificially crippling technology I might pay them for it. Of course, I'll probably have my own army of open source killbots by then.
I would actually pay to watch that. Kickstarter, anyone?
The issue here is that our youth are not learning how to learn. Core teaches them several very specific things and often gives our youth the impresssion that nothing else is necessary. Core does not teach our youth to question and test the validity of information. We are teaching them rote memorization. Yet, we excpect new ideas and innovation?
Which have nothing to do with cars. So why tax cars? Why not a general tax or a property tax or such?
Putting a $1,000 fee for transportation will really hurt a lot of poor people.
Parent is right, a $1000 transportation tax would be terrible for poor people. I have poor neighbors who can't even afford a junker that costs $1000, let alone an extra tax on top.
I see this "problem" as an admission that police are profitting from crime. The idea that less crime is a bad thing is absurd, especially when the reason is police won't make as much money. Cutting revenue from traffic citations may lead to a reduction in over-policing and the ability for small departments to spend money on things they don't need. When I say things they don't need, I mean things like the military surplus armored personnel carrier my hometown (population ~5000) just bought a couple years ago. Need I mention, they use it when it's totally unecessary (boys with toys).
Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.
That is like saying the mafia may quietly pretend to have the power to shut down your business if you don't do what they want. While the NSA may not have the authority, on paper, they certainly have the ability to press the issue by "extralegal" means and have verifiably done so in the past.
The odds of your gun being grabbed and used against you are high.
...when you live in an action movie...
Why should we replace personal responsibility with technology? A person, at least for now, can make a better judgment than a machine. It is true accidents with guns happen, especially involving children. A toddler picking up a gun and shooting somebody is easily prevented by keeping the gun away from the toddler. If we're going to do anything "smart" with our firearms, I agree with the previous poster who mentioned adding cameras to guns.
On another note, a firearm is so easy to make that anyone with very basic machining tools can make an AK-47 in their garage. If over-the-counter guns start to become less user-friendly more people will start making their own guns or buying "homebrew" weapons from sketchy sources.
For example on a CentOS system you might allow your webserver to make outgoing SMTP connections via something fun like this: "iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --cmd-owner httpd --dest-port 25 -j ACCEPT". (Why CentOS? Because it matches the command against HTTPD. On Debian systems the webserver process is more typically called 'apache2'.)
The cmd-owner match was removed in kernel 2.6.14 because it was broken with SMP.
The parent poster is correct. Windows and Linux are totally different animals in regards to firewalls. There is only one firewall for Linux and it is built into the system. IPTables is how the firewall is configured. All other tools are just front-ends or wrappers for IPTables.
IPTables doesn't have support for application-based firewalling. You can do that kind of thing using something lilke the Grsecurity patch for the kernel, but it is not for beginners.
Grsecurity will let you create policies exactly like what you're talking about and then some. For example, it will allow you to create a policy limiting which files and folders a given program can access. To be specific, on my machine I have a policy that Firefox can only write data to it's own folders and to my Downloads directory, and can't execute/run any files inside those folders. That way, if somebody hits me with a drive-by download or something it simply won't work.
Tesla Motors does sell directly from their website and is getting a lot of flak from car dealerships because of it. WSJ article.
(plus, if your area of expertise or interest is something related to data mining, the NSA might count as honest work compared to, say, Facebook)
When did the NSA and Facebook become separate entities?
It might act as an incentive to voluntarily keep the console always connected.
Sometimes, people you want to like do things that are wrong - even criminal. And there doesn't always have to be some big conspiracy behind it.
And sometimes people are afraid to outwardly admit agreeing with said acts.
It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
Does it really matter whose "fault" something is? Discrimination based on assumptions, regardless of the basis, should certainly be illegal. However, discrimination based on objective, observable things shouldn't be. For example, it should be illegal to discriminate against potential employees based on ethnicity. It should not be illegal to discriminate against people with a measurably low IQ when the job can be shown to require a higher IQ. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter that a person's intelligence quotient isn't exactly their fault.
This information was on a public webserver without any type of authentication. If a large company like AT&T is irresponsibly handling customer data in this way the public should absolutely be informed immediately. Mr. Aurenheimer could have handled the situation better, but I do not think his actions should be criminalized at this level. Did he endanger people by blowing a whistle? Yes. Did he compromise a secure computer system to do so? No. IMHO this should fall more under "creating a panic" or something.
Wake me when American military hackers are targeting Chinese civilians.
Is it so hard to believe that something like that may actually be happening already? Afterall, many of the operations conducted by our intelligence agencies (namely the CIA) are aimed at people many would consider civilians.
If I'm a national intelligence service and I want to create a botnet for military purposes, I also want to have plausible deniability. So, I construct my botnet the same general way criminals do. I hijack civilian computers, I purchase services through stolen credentials and fake ID's, etc.
Or maybe they hacked our Internets and burned down our firewall? Seriously, IP spoofing is not as useful as the movies make it out to be.
Spoofing IPs is easy, but it's only effective in a few situations, such as when you're sending a message with no expectation of a reply (e.g. spam e-mail, DDoS attack, etc.). If you're trying to break into someone's system, you need to be able to get a response back, and that means providing an IP address you can be reached at to your target. Now, you may try to anonymize your IP address somehow, such as through the use of proxies, VPNs, and other such technologies that can allow you to hide behind or within someone else's system, or you may spoof an IP address of a zombie computer you control and can use to route return packets to you, but at some point, an IP address you control needs to be provided to someone else, otherwise you have no way of getting back a response, and that address can be traced.
I think the point still stands that it's possible for an attack to appear to originate from a location different from where it actually did. What is to stop someone from using a hijacked wifi access point to attack servers in, let's say France, and then use those French servers to launch attacks on Australian businesses?
I have personally witnessed an attack where computers owned by an American company were infected with a persistent agent designed to infect computers in a specific business in China (during a visit of the American execs to the Chinese location), for the purpose of then using the hijacked Chinese computers to conduct industrial espionage against another American company which also conducted business with that Chinese company. The actual attackers were neither American nor Chinese.
I often wonder how the origin of all of these attacks is determined without actually tracking down the culprits. In today's world it is simple to stage an attack seeming to originate from anywhere in the world.
How do you know China isn't simply counting a hacked home box sitting on a cable connection as a governmental hack?
Perhaps we should be asking the same of our government? Whose to say that many of these "Chinese hackers" we keep hearing about aren't, in fact, hackers from elsewhere using compromised machines on Chinese networks?
The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.
In addition to that, many people fail to realize that sentencing modifications made in a plea bargain are generally not binding. The prosecution can recommend whatever, but the actual sentence is entirely up to the judge.
If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.
Part of what is being protested here is the legal system itself and the (often) ridiculous sentences it doles out. Yes, activists should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, but should not be expected to be quiet about them.