Pretty poor redundancy - goes to show you can't even trust the big players to get it right, and probably should run your own nameservers within your domains too, just in case...
At least the data was encrypted this time - or at least 'password protected' according to the Beeb article. "two password protected discs" does not necessarily imply the use of encryption.
What we do know is that the individual(s) that sent the discs weren't overly concerned about the security of the data they contained. Pure speculation, but if the same individual(s) also chose the password, it probably isn't very strong either (and probably wasn't delivered to the recipient in a safe way).
Given that identity verification often consists of as little as "what's the first line of your address?", "what's your date of birth?" or "what's your wife's name?" this presents a very serious breach of privacy/security indeed.
The evidence from the digital attack last year is as follows:
"The A-176 tank scope operator was panning to the North to acquire the target in question when a pop-up add appeared in the view finder alerting him of a fantastic deal on Viagra. Later alerts included free porn and offers to download virus scanning software"... This is why SpamAssassin should be integrated into tanks. It'd make mail headers a bit more entertaining, as well as reducing the general levels of spam.
Received: from sufi-isis.org (unknown [80.92.104.100])
by epsilon (Postfix) with SMTP id 08A4663D38 X-Spam-Report:
* 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2
* 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam)
* 2.4 FH_BAD_OEV1441 Bad X-Mailer version
* 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
* [Blocked - see ] X-Spam-Action:
* Turret aimed at 80.92.104.100
* 75 mm fragmentation shell dispatched
* 80.92.104.100 DESTROYED!!!
Just had a quick dig - Nominet's opt-out policy:
Only domain name holders that are non-trading individuals can opt-out of having their address details published. In other words, if you do not use or plan to use your domain name for business, trade or professional transactions you will be entitled to opt-out of having your address displayed. There are also WHOIS query limits to help reduce data mining.
You probably remember discussing this almost a year ago. Enjoy more on this at that coverage of the same story. At the time I remember thinking how useful it would be to fab my very own chocolate teapot. I'm enjoying re-covering that thought.:)
Yes - what you are describing are encoding artefacts introduced by using a very low bitrate to encode the video (presumably to cram so many HD channels down one old analogue band). Trust me on this one, I work with professional broadcast encoders and see this all the time. Bandwidth costs money, so broadcasters push down what they consider to be acceptable quality all the time.
The "free as in beer" thing really annoys me. I've NEVER seen free beer, anywhere! I propose we all stop using this ridiculous phrase and start using "free as in air" instead.
Now, if there IS free beer being offered somewhere, just point me in the right direction. Try this direction:
This was just a spill. No biggie. Nuclear facilities can deal with them. Accidental criticality has happened before though, with varying levels of consequence from none to fatality. There's an interesting synopsis of historic criticality accidents here:
Wow! I bet streaming audio must suck! Are you kidding?? This is Microsoft taking the moral high ground. Anyone streaming audio is likely to be stealing it, so they make it suck. And just you wait 'til you try to stream porn WITH AUDIO. Vista's network stack will actually push the porn back out onto the internet along with some embarrassing webcam captures which it'll e-mail to your mom!
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords. I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords. I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords. I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.......... I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.
Exactly. It doesn't mean that this device will never see the light of day, only that more development is needed to bring it up to the standard where it'll pass.
But you'll also find that the Linux kid will also drop a "load in his shorts" if he's using a kernel module with a flaw that can be exploited.
It is impossible to prove that any piece of software is 100% bug free. Impossible. Regardless of your operating system, if you trust kernel-level drivers (you actually want to *do* something useful with your system?), chances are that somewhere there is an exploitable flaw. It's just that no-one may have found it yet. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system.
Solving a linear equation through the datapoints of 300ms@5mW, 1us@200mW gives 277ms@20mW (but also gives 308ms@0mW and -8ms@205mW, so it can't be linear!)
According to the IEC60825 standard on laser safety, 200 mW will lead to permament eye damage within 1 microsecond (!) of exposure. The reason laser pointers are restricted to 1 or 5 mW (depending on the country) is that for those powers, eye damage will occur after 0.3 seconds, which is about the time for the blinking reflex to close your eyes in the event of accidental exposure. Unexpected reflections from things like glass can be up to 10% of the beam power - 20 mW (eye damage in 10 microseconds). (Emphasis mine)
I don't think it scales like that (or even linearly). Otherwise by your reasoning, 2mW => 100us for eye damage and not 300ms.
Surely its more likely to be nearer 100ms than 100us?
Solving a linear equation through the datapoints of 300m@5mW, 100us@200mW gives 277ms@20mW (but also gives 308ms@0mW and -8ms@205mW, so it can't be linear!)
But yeah, either way, reflections would be bad news, just perhaps not quite as bad as you suggest.:)
Naked teens attack home director
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Now I've got your attention worm style, click this link for more information:
Slashdot Mirror
...given that 123-reg's nameserver failure at the weekend left thousands of customers without a working site.
Pretty poor redundancy - goes to show you can't even trust the big players to get it right, and probably should run your own nameservers within your domains too, just in case...
What we do know is that the individual(s) that sent the discs weren't overly concerned about the security of the data they contained. Pure speculation, but if the same individual(s) also chose the password, it probably isn't very strong either (and probably wasn't delivered to the recipient in a safe way).
Odds are its one of these:
http://www.eribium.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/common_passwords.txt
Given that identity verification often consists of as little as "what's the first line of your address?", "what's your date of birth?" or "what's your wife's name?" this presents a very serious breach of privacy/security indeed.
"The A-176 tank scope operator was panning to the North to acquire the target in question when a pop-up add appeared in the view finder alerting him of a fantastic deal on Viagra. Later alerts included free porn and offers to download virus scanning software"... This is why SpamAssassin should be integrated into tanks. It'd make mail headers a bit more entertaining, as well as reducing the general levels of spam.
Received: from sufi-isis.org (unknown [80.92.104.100])
by epsilon (Postfix) with SMTP id 08A4663D38
X-Spam-Report:
* 4.3 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE2
* 2.5 RCVD_FORGED_WROTE Forged 'Received' header found ('wrote:' spam)
* 2.4 FH_BAD_OEV1441 Bad X-Mailer version
* 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
* [Blocked - see ]
X-Spam-Action:
* Turret aimed at 80.92.104.100
* 75 mm fragmentation shell dispatched
* 80.92.104.100 DESTROYED!!!
UK's Nominet (responsible for *.uk) let you opt-out of displaying contact details for domains. Why not other TLDs?
...as well as adding new features?
'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.
Yes - what you are describing are encoding artefacts introduced by using a very low bitrate to encode the video (presumably to cram so many HD channels down one old analogue band). Trust me on this one, I work with professional broadcast encoders and see this all the time. Bandwidth costs money, so broadcasters push down what they consider to be acceptable quality all the time.
Now, if there IS free beer being offered somewhere, just point me in the right direction. Try this direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_Libre#Free_as_in_free_beer_versus_free_as_in_free_speech
That's why I'm changing my name by deed poll to a mysql injection attack string.
;)
Try and combine my vote and a date together in a database you b*****rds!
This was just a spill. No biggie. Nuclear facilities can deal with them. Accidental criticality has happened before though, with varying levels of consequence from none to fatality. There's an interesting synopsis of historic criticality accidents here:
c al.html
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/criti
The whole "yellow liquid running into a hallway from under a door" thing is a bit Simpsons though...
Actually it was a Very Long Instruction Welcome which would be parallelised in the core. ;)
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords. ... ... ...
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.
I, for one, parallel welcome our new beowulf joke superseding overlords.
Quasineutrality? Quasi-likely-to-work-in-the-real-world more like. :P
Exactly. It doesn't mean that this device will never see the light of day, only that more development is needed to bring it up to the standard where it'll pass.
Interesting the timing of this article given Ofcom's recent approval of Ultra Wide Band for consumer devices in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6938941.stm
But you'll also find that the Linux kid will also drop a "load in his shorts" if he's using a kernel module with a flaw that can be exploited.
It is impossible to prove that any piece of software is 100% bug free. Impossible. Regardless of your operating system, if you trust kernel-level drivers (you actually want to *do* something useful with your system?), chances are that somewhere there is an exploitable flaw. It's just that no-one may have found it yet. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system.
D'oh, I meant:
:(
Solving a linear equation through the datapoints of 300ms@5mW, 1us@200mW gives 277ms@20mW (but also gives 308ms@0mW and -8ms@205mW, so it can't be linear!)
That'll teach me not to preview.
I don't think it scales like that (or even linearly). Otherwise by your reasoning, 2mW => 100us for eye damage and not 300ms.
Surely its more likely to be nearer 100ms than 100us?
Solving a linear equation through the datapoints of 300m@5mW, 100us@200mW gives 277ms@20mW (but also gives 308ms@0mW and -8ms@205mW, so it can't be linear!)
But yeah, either way, reflections would be bad news, just perhaps not quite as bad as you suggest.
Now I've got your attention worm style, click this link for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Worm
a) rubber bullets
b) tear gas
c) water cannon
d) wall of shields and batons
e) bright lights
I know what I'd chose!
Of course we're missing the uber-overlord crowd-suppressor; the rubber bullet firing tear gas cannon super-bright torch baton.
Sounds like the perfect new product for this company...
http://www.anuslaptops.com/