Um, I have NO medical training, but wouldn't your pulse being loud enough to hear be a sign of #$%^& high blood pressure... which would contribute to conditions that might need a heart replacement?
I wouldn't know; In high school, my BP tended in the uncomfortably low 80/50 range... which caused at least one school nurse much consternation, as she couldn't find my pulse in wrist or throat. "Dear, are you sure you're breathing?" Since getting out from my mother's obsessively healthy "low salt/low fat" cooking, I've achieved a more normal 100/70 normal BP.... but I still don't hear my heartbeat.
3rd email:
It doesn't seem that ebay would hire a third
party to create an ID system that the users
would have to shell out money for. That mixed
with the external link give it away.
Actually, they have done pretty much that, but it appears to be done in-house. The phishing giveaway, however, is the "Warning: Failure to Verify your ID may result in Account Suspension." While Ebay might (and did) create such as system, they would not make it mandatory unless fraud was not only rampant, but nigh universal. The funky URL is an incidental side clue; I got all 10 correct without even the URLs-- Safari doesn't show the "mouse-over" text, and the active URLs are all to a pop up "disabled" message. Mind you, while the style is getting better, the Phishers still don't have what it takes to be a professional writer for an actual company-- which would allow them a better way to earn a dishonest living.
For example, consider from number two: "It has come to our attention that your PayPal account information needs to be updated as part of our continuing commitment to protect your account and to reduce the instance of fraud on our website."
If there was a genuine message on these lines from PayPal, it wouldn't be phrased thus. It hasn't "come to their attention" that the account needs updating... that's (hypothetically) the Paypal POLICY, which bloody well better not have just come to their attention; it's come to Paypal's attention that you haven't done so, and were it not a phishing scam, they would tell you so... and probably quote the chapter and verse of the user agreement saying you had to do it.
(The other rted flags for me were: message 4, the "connection secured" logo on an e-mail and the "Mail sent to this address cannot be answered"; message 6 "We regret to inform you, that we were unable"-- a misplaced comma; message 7, no rational connection as to how monthly validation contributes to "Best Possible" service; message 8, "you dont leave us any choice"; message 10, your records being out of date is not a "problem with our services".)
On the other hand, thanks to our our wonderful education system most people (aside from professional writers of one sort or another) no longer understand these sorts of linguistic subtleties. And many of them are oblivious trusting liberal arts majors who do whatever their computer tells them.
Obviously if the untrusted party is malicious (rather than just a source of potentially unaudited, insecure code) then either option is going to give them Admin power full stop.
Given that you should "never attribute to malice what may be adequately explained by stupidity", and given everything I've heard about production code "going gold" while still rough polished brass, that's going to be a lot of third party SUID security holes. I'd say that the difference in protection quality amounts only to guarding against local user ignorance/stupidity... which, mind you, is not a bad thing, but is not the same thing as protection against remote cracker malice.
At the very least, why can't the installer put a 'setuid' (or whatever the windows equivalent is) program that does the bit-banging?
Even in UNIX, SUID files are one of the things you need to watch closely. As a non-random example, a superuser-SUID copy of [insert cracker's favorite shell] is a nicely unsubtle way to help widen a security pinhole into an aircraft hanger door.
Your proposed technique does definitely reduce the ability of the user to accidentally shoot themselves in the foot, but any weakness in third-party SUID programs still effectively translates into an operating system weakness.
Why should administrator authority need to be granted to play a game?
Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.
I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this.
While some blame attaches to Microsoft, since they choose to use such a copy protection method with their games, the real culprit is Macromedia, who made the SafeDisc copy protection system at fault.
So, what do you think will happen if it can be proven that the copy-protection methods the Content lobbies (RIAA/MPAA/BSA) are using are a threat to Homeland Security?
. I actually had my Mac and LCD, printer, etc. behind two surge suppressors - don't ask me why, I have no idea if that provides extra protection or not
Err... not. As I understand it, this tends to clamp any surge directly to the "protected" hardware, rather than ground.
The G4 is remarkably robust under lightning. I recently did a house call, where it turned out what the owner thought was a surge protector was a simple outlet splitter... which explained the smell of burning plastic coming from the fax machine and electric pencil sharpener. The Laserwriter 360 worked (after spontaneously printing a solid black page when power was restored), but the Dayna Appletalk/printertalk adapter didn't work any more, and (again) the on board NIC and modem were shot. Add one Mac compatible USB modem (pricey, but not my money, and cheaper than getting the onboard fixed) and PCI NIC (lying around waiting for just this emergency), an Asante converter to replace the Dayna, and a new Belkin Surge Supressor, the beast was ready to surf again. Well, after the automated fsck on boot-- the machine had been in use when the lightning struck.
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Then again, any IT guy who is using HTML-enabled e-mail should have his geek license revoked in the first place.
Hell, I use it all the time. Of course, I read it using Unix mush, and a wetware-based html render engine. =) If they can infect that with a virus, I'm already in trouble by definition. I must say, it does make most of the phish and spam stand out.
My main objection to the test: ALL the URLs all failed my initial "phishing" test-- does the HTML text visible match the underlying source hyperlink? For the test, they were all linked to "#" with an a OnClick popup. The "mouse over" trick to show you what it's nominally linking to doesn't work in Safari.
Oddly, I was still able to get 10/10 due to sublteties in style difference between the legits and the fakes (which I wish I could concisely quantify). Given the department I work for emphasizes the importance of both communication and ethics, I find it interesting that there seems a link here between poor verbal skills and criminal intent. I wonder if it's because the more eloquent have better ways toscam a living, or perhaps because so many of the scammers are non-native English speakers of limited fluency....
They, do, obviously, get along perfectly well with Apple compression utilities...
Actually, I believe some (the OS X command line tar springs to mind?) merely ignore the presence of the resource fork. So, an archive and restore-to-new-computer on some utilities removes the resource fork-- a marginally undesirable feature in one's general backup solution.
As someone else noted, however, the resource fork is depreciated these days. I believe Photoshop may still use it for creating custom thumbnail icons for image files, and it's present in some.app bundles, but that's the only thing I can recall that might be using it these days.
It is so simple to do a nightly backup to a ftp server with only a batch file, a text file, and pkzip.
To state the blindingly obvious, I'd pay decent money to watch you try to do a nightly backup to an FTP server, with those, but without a network connection. =)
Given the network connection, FTP or SMB are the easy approaches. But the network connection is not always available to the travelling laptop. For such other cases, LaCie makes a nice USB/FW pocketdrive that I'm partial to... if you have the budget for it, and if you have the sense to put it in a DIFFERENT CARRY-ON bag from the laptop (grumble, grumble, grumble). Or you can use an iPod or other HD-based MP3 player, if you're really flush.
It'd be interesting to know how the unofficial support channels stack up against the real thing
Suggestive, from the article:
It's worth noting that the highest-ranked vendors both for reliability and tech support, bar none(emphasis added), are the do-it-yourselfers and the "white box" companies no-names sold by local integrators.
Impressive, given that "bar none" evidently includes Apple-- whose satisfaction levels were about 1 full point out of 10 above everyone else's.
God didn't give man wings, but did give man a brain.
He also gave us pigeons, to provide us with both an irritating reminder of our lack, and an implicit provocation to do something about it. Lamentably, we decided to develop the gun before the airplane. =)
But this problem could (and needs to) be solved here first, if we can't do it on earth what make you think any amount of money will give us the ability to do it in space?
A smaller scale experiment can give insights to a larger problem. Thus, before the Wright brothers flew, they made (essentially) toy airplanes.
We already know that the earth's ecology more-or-less works (leaving aside somehumanintervention), but we don't have much understanding of how or why it works, or what might lead to our current niche in the ecology abruptly reducing in distribution and scope (aside from certain obvious threats). Small scale experiments in space allow us to get a better understanding of the principles, and possibly try some purturbation analyses.
Yes, in theory, this can be done on Earth as well. But there are other synergistic benefits to doing it in space (EG, getting free soup)... and just because it can be done on Earth, doesn't mean it will be done. How much biosphere research is done from NASA? How much of that would go away without the need to occaisionally keep some %^&%* lucky bastards alive up there every now and then?
(Disclaimer: I work with someone who was one of those %^&%* lucky bastards.)
Manned spaceflight will require us to develop an understanding of the requirements of supporting human life in a finite ecology located in space. That might be worthwhile....
Have you read the Libertarian party platform on the environment?
Actually, yes. To put it bluntly, the measures the currenly stated pricinples allow, such as as described in the platform, appear utterly inadequate.
As an single example, the impact that XYZ-Corp's completely unfiltered coal burning plant has only a de minimus impact on the breathability of the air over the 1.1 acre my last house was on. The platform seems to suggest that the laws should be altered allow me recompense or cleanup assistance. However, this neglects marginal cost of enforcement actions: to wit, the cost of my proving that it was XYZ-Corp's plant contributing to the unbreathability of my air, the time and resources that XYZ-Co spends on proving that coal ash is perfectly safe, and the time of the judge and lawyers spent arguing over this drivel. These non-zero costs largely act mostly as "friction" losses in the economic system.
Assuming that the public trust is not
betrayed by politicians in power, the economies of scale provided by the fiction of "public property" make enforcement economically practical. There are obviously lots of other similar examples besides XYZ-corp. Libertarians far too often appear to ignore these economies of scale, the informational cost in economic transactions, the imperfect utility value of money and the existance of non-commesurables, the number of assholes already clogging our courts and spam-filters, and a number of historical hazards like abusivemonopolies.
Furthermore, in a longer term view, I see very little in the current libertarian principles that encourage maintaining biodiversity, which is essential to making an ecosubsystem (EG, life on land) resiliant under climatalogical shifts-- which occur naturally even without human greenhouse intervention. Now, these shifts by themselves are unlikely to wipe out all life on earth, but it could easily remove the nitche for 50-100 kilo bipedal large-skulled mammals which (most days) I would find a Bad Thing.
One of the important aspects of voting for a 3rd party is that when the percentage of voters gets substantial, both of the major parties begin to look at the 3rd party platform for issues which they can use to lure the 3rd party voters back.
Thus the Democrats have changed over time to take on more of the Green Party platform.
Or, from a historical perspective, the Democrats under FDR took on much of the Progressive and Socialist agendas in the 1930s.
The other precedent in the US is that when one or more major political party gets internal divisions sufficiently dire, a third party may be able to cut voters off from one or both, such as with the Lincoln Election. While the Republicans appear to my superficial view to be headed in that direction with the dominance of the Christian Ultra-Right (versus the Business/Financial conservatives), they have a few more years to go before there's any real danger of a party split.
If someone could come up with a consistent and appetizing set of principles to reconcile the libertarian small government and de minimum personal conduct rules with a pro-environment stance, you'd have a party that could manage to take large chunks from both sides. However, that isn't likely to work any time soon.
There's also no consistently powerful orator these days on these issues anywhere in sight, to match the stature of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bryant, or Webster, so I wouldn't count on any radical changes in politics in the next decade or so.
When people have sufficient bandwidth in their homes to watch video streams, "Joe's Local News" and CNN will be on equal footing.
Ahh... no. The broadcast technology used isn't the only bottleneck. Ya see, Joe's Local News (very like Slashdot) can give it's own spin on what other people have reported, but doesn't have the resources to do original in-depth investigations or global on-site work. How can Joe KNOW what's happening in Baghdad? Of course, he can see what Adbul's Local News is putting up, but this requires a similarly capable Abdul (unlikely in a 2nd/3rd World war zone), and that Abdul be putting out something on speaking terms with reliable information.
Of course, as DV cameras become more common, you have more potential (unpaid) freelancers near anything that comes out. Add in VASTLY more bandwidth to the home than currently common (say, FTTDoor), combine with current antiquated Usenet technology and the creation of the alt.binaries.multimedia.news-footage.* group/subheirarchy... you might get some interesting possibilities for Joe's news. But we're nowhere near the DVCam or Bandwidth capacity needed for this yet. And, gee, some of the current providers of Bigass Bandwidth have business ties to current Media Giants. Hrem.
If the head of one of the biggest media conglomerates says they need to be broken up, it may just show how bad things have gotten. There are a few filthy rich who think they are filthy rich enough, and can now put principles ahead of purse. On the other hand, it may be that he's not nutty, but rather Daffy:
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't know; In high school, my BP tended in the uncomfortably low 80/50 range... which caused at least one school nurse much consternation, as she couldn't find my pulse in wrist or throat. "Dear, are you sure you're breathing?" Since getting out from my mother's obsessively healthy "low salt/low fat" cooking, I've achieved a more normal 100/70 normal BP.... but I still don't hear my heartbeat.
Well, that's kinda the whole point of this article... you now can, using a heart-whirr instead of a heart-beat.
It doesn't seem that ebay would hire a third party to create an ID system that the users would have to shell out money for. That mixed with the external link give it away.
Actually, they have done pretty much that, but it appears to be done in-house. The phishing giveaway, however, is the "Warning: Failure to Verify your ID may result in Account Suspension." While Ebay might (and did) create such as system, they would not make it mandatory unless fraud was not only rampant, but nigh universal. The funky URL is an incidental side clue; I got all 10 correct without even the URLs-- Safari doesn't show the "mouse-over" text, and the active URLs are all to a pop up "disabled" message. Mind you, while the style is getting better, the Phishers still don't have what it takes to be a professional writer for an actual company-- which would allow them a better way to earn a dishonest living.
For example, consider from number two: "It has come to our attention that your PayPal account information needs to be updated as part of our continuing commitment to protect your account and to reduce the instance of fraud on our website." If there was a genuine message on these lines from PayPal, it wouldn't be phrased thus. It hasn't "come to their attention" that the account needs updating... that's (hypothetically) the Paypal POLICY, which bloody well better not have just come to their attention; it's come to Paypal's attention that you haven't done so, and were it not a phishing scam, they would tell you so... and probably quote the chapter and verse of the user agreement saying you had to do it.
(The other rted flags for me were: message 4, the "connection secured" logo on an e-mail and the "Mail sent to this address cannot be answered"; message 6 "We regret to inform you, that we were unable"-- a misplaced comma; message 7, no rational connection as to how monthly validation contributes to "Best Possible" service; message 8, "you dont leave us any choice"; message 10, your records being out of date is not a "problem with our services".)
On the other hand, thanks to our our wonderful education system most people (aside from professional writers of one sort or another) no longer understand these sorts of linguistic subtleties. And many of them are oblivious trusting liberal arts majors who do whatever their computer tells them.
We're doomed, I tell you. Doomed, doomed, doomed.
Given that you should "never attribute to malice what may be adequately explained by stupidity", and given everything I've heard about production code "going gold" while still rough polished brass, that's going to be a lot of third party SUID security holes. I'd say that the difference in protection quality amounts only to guarding against local user ignorance/stupidity... which, mind you, is not a bad thing, but is not the same thing as protection against remote cracker malice.
Even in UNIX, SUID files are one of the things you need to watch closely. As a non-random example, a superuser-SUID copy of [insert cracker's favorite shell] is a nicely unsubtle way to help widen a security pinhole into an aircraft hanger door.
Your proposed technique does definitely reduce the ability of the user to accidentally shoot themselves in the foot, but any weakness in third-party SUID programs still effectively translates into an operating system weakness.
Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.
I have found no more powerful example of Microsoft's lack of commitment to security than this.
While some blame attaches to Microsoft, since they choose to use such a copy protection method with their games, the real culprit is Macromedia, who made the SafeDisc copy protection system at fault.
So, what do you think will happen if it can be proven that the copy-protection methods the Content lobbies (RIAA/MPAA/BSA) are using are a threat to Homeland Security?
Err... not. As I understand it, this tends to clamp any surge directly to the "protected" hardware, rather than ground.
The G4 is remarkably robust under lightning. I recently did a house call, where it turned out what the owner thought was a surge protector was a simple outlet splitter... which explained the smell of burning plastic coming from the fax machine and electric pencil sharpener. The Laserwriter 360 worked (after spontaneously printing a solid black page when power was restored), but the Dayna Appletalk/printertalk adapter didn't work any more, and (again) the on board NIC and modem were shot. Add one Mac compatible USB modem (pricey, but not my money, and cheaper than getting the onboard fixed) and PCI NIC (lying around waiting for just this emergency), an Asante converter to replace the Dayna, and a new Belkin Surge Supressor, the beast was ready to surf again. Well, after the automated fsck on boot-- the machine had been in use when the lightning struck.
Somehow, I don't think you'll be happy if you learn he uses a Lady Schick.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Hell, I use it all the time. Of course, I read it using Unix mush, and a wetware-based html render engine. =) If they can infect that with a virus, I'm already in trouble by definition. I must say, it does make most of the phish and spam stand out.
My main objection to the test: ALL the URLs all failed my initial "phishing" test-- does the HTML text visible match the underlying source hyperlink? For the test, they were all linked to "#" with an a OnClick popup. The "mouse over" trick to show you what it's nominally linking to doesn't work in Safari.
Oddly, I was still able to get 10/10 due to sublteties in style difference between the legits and the fakes (which I wish I could concisely quantify). Given the department I work for emphasizes the importance of both communication and ethics, I find it interesting that there seems a link here between poor verbal skills and criminal intent. I wonder if it's because the more eloquent have better ways to scam a living, or perhaps because so many of the scammers are non-native English speakers of limited fluency....
Actually, I believe some (the OS X command line tar springs to mind?) merely ignore the presence of the resource fork. So, an archive and restore-to-new-computer on some utilities removes the resource fork-- a marginally undesirable feature in one's general backup solution.
As someone else noted, however, the resource fork is depreciated these days. I believe Photoshop may still use it for creating custom thumbnail icons for image files, and it's present in some .app bundles, but that's the only thing I can recall that might be using it these days.
To state the blindingly obvious, I'd pay decent money to watch you try to do a nightly backup to an FTP server, with those, but without a network connection. =)
Given the network connection, FTP or SMB are the easy approaches. But the network connection is not always available to the travelling laptop. For such other cases, LaCie makes a nice USB/FW pocketdrive that I'm partial to... if you have the budget for it, and if you have the sense to put it in a DIFFERENT CARRY-ON bag from the laptop (grumble, grumble, grumble). Or you can use an iPod or other HD-based MP3 player, if you're really flush.
Suggestive, from the article:
It's worth noting that the highest-ranked vendors both for reliability and tech support, bar none (emphasis added), are the do-it-yourselfers and the "white box" companies no-names sold by local integrators.
Impressive, given that "bar none" evidently includes Apple-- whose satisfaction levels were about 1 full point out of 10 above everyone else's.
He also gave us pigeons, to provide us with both an irritating reminder of our lack, and an implicit provocation to do something about it. Lamentably, we decided to develop the gun before the airplane. =)
A smaller scale experiment can give insights to a larger problem. Thus, before the Wright brothers flew, they made (essentially) toy airplanes.
We already know that the earth's ecology more-or-less works (leaving aside some human intervention), but we don't have much understanding of how or why it works, or what might lead to our current niche in the ecology abruptly reducing in distribution and scope (aside from certain obvious threats). Small scale experiments in space allow us to get a better understanding of the principles, and possibly try some purturbation analyses.
Yes, in theory, this can be done on Earth as well. But there are other synergistic benefits to doing it in space (EG, getting free soup)... and just because it can be done on Earth, doesn't mean it will be done. How much biosphere research is done from NASA? How much of that would go away without the need to occaisionally keep some %^&%* lucky bastards alive up there every now and then?
(Disclaimer: I work with someone who was one of those %^&%* lucky bastards.)
Perhaps not foolproof, but the "Patriot" alternative so far shows a record even worse.
(Patriot Missile System:Freindly Fire :: Patriot Act:???)
Not to say this is or isn't at least contributory infringement-- IANAL.
Actually, yes. To put it bluntly, the measures the currenly stated pricinples allow, such as as described in the platform, appear utterly inadequate.
As an single example, the impact that XYZ-Corp's completely unfiltered coal burning plant has only a de minimus impact on the breathability of the air over the 1.1 acre my last house was on. The platform seems to suggest that the laws should be altered allow me recompense or cleanup assistance. However, this neglects marginal cost of enforcement actions: to wit, the cost of my proving that it was XYZ-Corp's plant contributing to the unbreathability of my air, the time and resources that XYZ-Co spends on proving that coal ash is perfectly safe, and the time of the judge and lawyers spent arguing over this drivel. These non-zero costs largely act mostly as "friction" losses in the economic system.
Assuming that the public trust is not betrayed by politicians in power, the economies of scale provided by the fiction of "public property" make enforcement economically practical. There are obviously lots of other similar examples besides XYZ-corp. Libertarians far too often appear to ignore these economies of scale, the informational cost in economic transactions, the imperfect utility value of money and the existance of non-commesurables, the number of assholes already clogging our courts and spam-filters, and a number of historical hazards like abusive monopolies.
Furthermore, in a longer term view, I see very little in the current libertarian principles that encourage maintaining biodiversity, which is essential to making an ecosubsystem (EG, life on land) resiliant under climatalogical shifts-- which occur naturally even without human greenhouse intervention. Now, these shifts by themselves are unlikely to wipe out all life on earth, but it could easily remove the nitche for 50-100 kilo bipedal large-skulled mammals which (most days) I would find a Bad Thing.
Thus the Democrats have changed over time to take on more of the Green Party platform.
Or, from a historical perspective, the Democrats under FDR took on much of the Progressive and Socialist agendas in the 1930s.
The other precedent in the US is that when one or more major political party gets internal divisions sufficiently dire, a third party may be able to cut voters off from one or both, such as with the Lincoln Election. While the Republicans appear to my superficial view to be headed in that direction with the dominance of the Christian Ultra-Right (versus the Business/Financial conservatives), they have a few more years to go before there's any real danger of a party split.
If someone could come up with a consistent and appetizing set of principles to reconcile the libertarian small government and de minimum personal conduct rules with a pro-environment stance, you'd have a party that could manage to take large chunks from both sides. However, that isn't likely to work any time soon.
There's also no consistently powerful orator these days on these issues anywhere in sight, to match the stature of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bryant, or Webster, so I wouldn't count on any radical changes in politics in the next decade or so.
Ahh... no. The broadcast technology used isn't the only bottleneck. Ya see, Joe's Local News (very like Slashdot) can give it's own spin on what other people have reported, but doesn't have the resources to do original in-depth investigations or global on-site work. How can Joe KNOW what's happening in Baghdad? Of course, he can see what Adbul's Local News is putting up, but this requires a similarly capable Abdul (unlikely in a 2nd/3rd World war zone), and that Abdul be putting out something on speaking terms with reliable information.
Of course, as DV cameras become more common, you have more potential (unpaid) freelancers near anything that comes out. Add in VASTLY more bandwidth to the home than currently common (say, FTTDoor), combine with current antiquated Usenet technology and the creation of the alt.binaries.multimedia.news-footage.* group/subheirarchy... you might get some interesting possibilities for Joe's news. But we're nowhere near the DVCam or Bandwidth capacity needed for this yet. And, gee, some of the current providers of Bigass Bandwidth have business ties to current Media Giants. Hrem.
10 years bare minimum, if ever.
"Well I say he does have to shoot me now! So shoot me now!"