Thus always to rapists? He's wanted for questioning on something doesn't quite match rape and hasn't even been charged with a that yet FFS. It's all so obviously political opportunism that people who take it seriously are just making themselves look stupid. He pissed off a "tyrant" in that one of the things he published makes Hillary look very bad, then suddenly he's seen as being worth dragging from country to country for questioning while bail skipping child rapists like Polanski are left alone.
and it seems to imply that it is for the purpose for maintaining a well regulated militia
Shoosh! The cowards who want to have military weapons without the responsibility of being in the military want to keep that bit quiet! Now you've given the game away and they can't scream about how they have a right to fire in a crowded theatre.
Proxy - very easy - see the games network providers have played with DNS for an example of redirecting anything on a port to where you want it to go. If you think because I mentioned DNS it can't be done on another port then look up "transparent proxy" for a http example, or those fucking insane https "accelerator" boxes where users give their banking details to whoever owns and manufactures the "accelerator" boxes. VPN - there's a move to restrict those as part of the current mess that's being complained about, so that could mean blocked ports, protocols and blocking any packets on unblocked ports that look like they belong to a VPN.
hundreds of thousands of ways around it
In this case there are less than a dozen ways in and out, and the "hundreds of thousands" of potential tunnels have to got through those and can be blocked if the means is draconian enough, which is the intention. Even a VPN tunnelling via a "safe" port is likely to show up with some packet inspection.
An earlier time this came up there was a suggestion to block all encrypted traffic and do deep packet inspection on everything else, and it was seriously considered.
So the answer is not to say "ha ha, they can't stop the net", the answer is to oppose these attempts to stop the net because they can get pretty close to stopping it if they don't care about upsetting the people who are using it. Murdoch is calling the shots and an internet slowed to a crawl by insane filtering and packet inspection is less competition for his cable network.
No it is actually about selling out to donors who want copyright enforced brutally. You are looking for deep motives in a very shallow government. Murdoch wants this, Tony will provide.
It's not quite 200 years but the forward of "Three Men in a Boat, and not to mention the dog" goes on about "pirates" in Chicago who reprinted the book for the US market without giving the author anything. The US publishing industry was infamous for that sort of thing.
That VPN you suggest was already on the radar before this was announced. The Australian Government has been discussing blocking VPNs to stop those "cheaters" who are using Netflix etc instead of the local, very expensive, Fox cable network. The owner of that network, Murdoch, has been a cheerleader for the current Government so long as they do exactly what he wants.
this is indicative that you aren't trustworthy enough for a classified position either
Very "polite" there I see. What's behind all this bullshit of demanding that I treat lazy policing as the gold standard? Wouldn't it be better to go after real criminals instead of casting a very wide net to catch the greedy that can be tempted by situations that don't sound so bad? If it was applied evenly 3/4 of Washington would be behind bars.
since you advocate allowing people willing to sell classified information
Show me where I do instead of your imagined strawman doing it. Or is the mere fantasy of thinking I suggested it enough? Oh that's right, your entire objection is based on "but what if it WAS real?" and completely misses the entire fucking point that it was not - it's a sting based on fantasy that is never going to happen and so will catch people that may never become real criminals. Did I make that obvious enough for you yet? Do you get that I haven't even touched on real espionage one way or another yet?
I really don't get why some people here build elaborate houses of cards just to have their strawmen utter them in the name of others instead of very simple statements like mine way above which should not need extra explanation. It looks like pointless dishonesty.
Since the above poster made a big deal about qualifications not mattering it is worth explaining to others why he personally has that view and how it may not be considered valid by some others. In previous discussions he lumped all three you mentioned into the "doesn't matter" category. Since he gets to tell us all that he is an Engineer without any of those three however he does have a point in his situation if not in some others. What matters is what your prospective boss is looking for, and relevant experience should trump certification anyway unless it's needed to practice.
That's straying waaaay off the point of whether drones sharing airspace with aircraft is a good idea or not. You can't keep the birds away as easily as stopping people flying drones near airports or at aircraft operating altitudes. It's enough to identify that a bird in contact with an aircraft is a problem, compare that with drones in contact and then decide what to do about likely contact.
That's a very good point. When you can repeatedly tell the world that you are an engineer without an actual qualification, or experience, that resembles an engineering degree in any way it is natural that you would think that way. The "I'm an engineer and I say steel doesn't get soft when hot so 9/11 was faked" from you was a blight on a profession that you are not a member of.
Alpine is still out there and works on current platforms. I use it on a mail server to forward quarantined attachments to people when antimalware stops them posting executable files to each other. Mutt isn't bad either.
Most of this stuff is done by people who have jobs, it's just not their core business to sell tiny little improvements that nobody is going to buy individually. Since it misses what could be discovered within a few minutes of inquiring into the subject I think the post is designed either to push an agenda or to start an argument.
There's more than one incident that was due to losing an engine at a bad time with multi-engined aircraft. To me that sounds like a good enough reason to keep drones away from airports - losing an engine during takeoff or landing can mean things like wingtips hit the runway before the wheels. So I don't see anything at all wrong with the comparison and suspect you are not seriously considering the subject if you do.
A former felon got locked up for a few years over a very simple workplace dispute there which got blown out of all proportion to give the Mayor a photo opportunity at the prison. He had to be guilty of all kinds of evil plans because of his record, even if reality looked a lot like getting caught in the middle of a dispute where the person in charge of IT security was being squeezed out to give a crony a place to work. Can't work it out yet? Google "Terry Childs". Funny how all of those initial charges of mayhem were reduced to a much smaller number of charges isn't it?
It sounds like you suggesting an FBI sting (that worked) is comparable to making people take off their shoes at the airport.
It didn't work in terms of being a useful thing IMHO because the fantasy fed to the target was so outlandish that it was never going to happen in reality. Oh, so we caught someone who was willing to sell stuff to a major military ally under carefully controlled circumstances - big fucking deal. If it was a real crime, instead of a setup, of selling secrets to a major military ally it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted for diplomatic reasons. See classified stuff obtained by Israel as an example - and Egypt is almost as big an ally in terms of military aid. It has less value than taking shoes off at an airport.
A different sting maybe, but this one was ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus always to rapists? He's wanted for questioning on something doesn't quite match rape and hasn't even been charged with a that yet FFS.
It's all so obviously political opportunism that people who take it seriously are just making themselves look stupid. He pissed off a "tyrant" in that one of the things he published makes Hillary look very bad, then suddenly he's seen as being worth dragging from country to country for questioning while bail skipping child rapists like Polanski are left alone.
China is still trying to recover from that dangerous idiot.
Shoosh! The cowards who want to have military weapons without the responsibility of being in the military want to keep that bit quiet! Now you've given the game away and they can't scream about how they have a right to fire in a crowded theatre.
Stir crazy is the answer.
VPN - there's a move to restrict those as part of the current mess that's being complained about, so that could mean blocked ports, protocols and blocking any packets on unblocked ports that look like they belong to a VPN.
In this case there are less than a dozen ways in and out, and the "hundreds of thousands" of potential tunnels have to got through those and can be blocked if the means is draconian enough, which is the intention. Even a VPN tunnelling via a "safe" port is likely to show up with some packet inspection.
An earlier time this came up there was a suggestion to block all encrypted traffic and do deep packet inspection on everything else, and it was seriously considered.
So the answer is not to say "ha ha, they can't stop the net", the answer is to oppose these attempts to stop the net because they can get pretty close to stopping it if they don't care about upsetting the people who are using it. Murdoch is calling the shots and an internet slowed to a crawl by insane filtering and packet inspection is less competition for his cable network.
No it is actually about selling out to donors who want copyright enforced brutally. You are looking for deep motives in a very shallow government. Murdoch wants this, Tony will provide.
It's not quite 200 years but the forward of "Three Men in a Boat, and not to mention the dog" goes on about "pirates" in Chicago who reprinted the book for the US market without giving the author anything. The US publishing industry was infamous for that sort of thing.
That VPN you suggest was already on the radar before this was announced. The Australian Government has been discussing blocking VPNs to stop those "cheaters" who are using Netflix etc instead of the local, very expensive, Fox cable network. The owner of that network, Murdoch, has been a cheerleader for the current Government so long as they do exactly what he wants.
Simpering halfwits? Look up "they control the routers in and out of the country" you simpering no-wit.
If you are using email for sensitive material then you are ignoring decades of warnings from everyone with a clue about email.
Very "polite" there I see.
What's behind all this bullshit of demanding that I treat lazy policing as the gold standard? Wouldn't it be better to go after real criminals instead of casting a very wide net to catch the greedy that can be tempted by situations that don't sound so bad? If it was applied evenly 3/4 of Washington would be behind bars.
If that's being polite ....
Show me where I do instead of your imagined strawman doing it. Or is the mere fantasy of thinking I suggested it enough?
Oh that's right, your entire objection is based on "but what if it WAS real?" and completely misses the entire fucking point that it was not - it's a sting based on fantasy that is never going to happen and so will catch people that may never become real criminals.
Did I make that obvious enough for you yet?
Do you get that I haven't even touched on real espionage one way or another yet?
I really don't get why some people here build elaborate houses of cards just to have their strawmen utter them in the name of others instead of very simple statements like mine way above which should not need extra explanation. It looks like pointless dishonesty.
Since the above poster made a big deal about qualifications not mattering it is worth explaining to others why he personally has that view and how it may not be considered valid by some others. In previous discussions he lumped all three you mentioned into the "doesn't matter" category. Since he gets to tell us all that he is an Engineer without any of those three however he does have a point in his situation if not in some others. What matters is what your prospective boss is looking for, and relevant experience should trump certification anyway unless it's needed to practice.
Even former lawyers are a vast improvement to the usual life cycle of a Washington insider.
That's straying waaaay off the point of whether drones sharing airspace with aircraft is a good idea or not. You can't keep the birds away as easily as stopping people flying drones near airports or at aircraft operating altitudes.
It's enough to identify that a bird in contact with an aircraft is a problem, compare that with drones in contact and then decide what to do about likely contact.
That's a very good point. When you can repeatedly tell the world that you are an engineer without an actual qualification, or experience, that resembles an engineering degree in any way it is natural that you would think that way.
The "I'm an engineer and I say steel doesn't get soft when hot so 9/11 was faked" from you was a blight on a profession that you are not a member of.
Alpine is still out there and works on current platforms. I use it on a mail server to forward quarantined attachments to people when antimalware stops them posting executable files to each other. Mutt isn't bad either.
Most of this stuff is done by people who have jobs, it's just not their core business to sell tiny little improvements that nobody is going to buy individually.
Since it misses what could be discovered within a few minutes of inquiring into the subject I think the post is designed either to push an agenda or to start an argument.
Well, I just picked up what I know from a travel documentary so it's clear you know far more about this topic than myself. Thanks for the info.
There's more than one incident that was due to losing an engine at a bad time with multi-engined aircraft. To me that sounds like a good enough reason to keep drones away from airports - losing an engine during takeoff or landing can mean things like wingtips hit the runway before the wheels.
So I don't see anything at all wrong with the comparison and suspect you are not seriously considering the subject if you do.
So 200 deaths since 1988 is no big deal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike#Incidents
Geese have managed to bring down jet fighters so a bird strike is bad enough.
A former felon got locked up for a few years over a very simple workplace dispute there which got blown out of all proportion to give the Mayor a photo opportunity at the prison. He had to be guilty of all kinds of evil plans because of his record, even if reality looked a lot like getting caught in the middle of a dispute where the person in charge of IT security was being squeezed out to give a crony a place to work.
Can't work it out yet? Google "Terry Childs". Funny how all of those initial charges of mayhem were reduced to a much smaller number of charges isn't it?
It didn't work in terms of being a useful thing IMHO because the fantasy fed to the target was so outlandish that it was never going to happen in reality. Oh, so we caught someone who was willing to sell stuff to a major military ally under carefully controlled circumstances - big fucking deal. If it was a real crime, instead of a setup, of selling secrets to a major military ally it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted for diplomatic reasons. See classified stuff obtained by Israel as an example - and Egypt is almost as big an ally in terms of military aid.
It has less value than taking shoes off at an airport.
A different sting maybe, but this one was ridiculous.