Part of me thinks they're getting dangerously close to messing this up too much. A search for "automatic downloading of tv shows" actually leads to some reasonable articles showing how to set up automated downloads. I also know that software exists which can tie in to these and automatically sort tv shows and add them to libraries in XBMC or similar.
It's not going to be long before average Joe can install one piece of software, and from then on have "free" TV shows popping up on his home system whenever they air. As the generations get older too, you'll have less and less people who are used to the idea of "channels" on a TV even, and soon this will be the norm. People are switching because it's easier, cheaper or more convenient to pirate. What motivation (beyond legal repercussions) will be left when a majority of people are using free 1-click software packages to acquire TV shows?
Personally, I think if a cop doesn't "step up" that makes him part of the problem. The only good cops, in my ideal view of the world, are the ones who do "step up".
A facebook message consisting of 160 characters would be less than 1kB (amortised). The usual cost of an SMS is between 10c and 25c. 10c per kB equates to $100 per MB.
In other words, telco profit margins on SMS when compared to FB messages are orders of magnitude smaller. It might be even worse, I've heard that SMS messages are sent in some form of "control" packet hence the 160 char limit, meaning that SMS overheads are (somewhat) essential to running the mobile network.
The firewall solution would probably require DPI. An easier solution would be to use Disconnect[1] which is a Chrome extension that blocks exactly this sort of thing.
If there was only 1 cheating husband, his wife would see no one else kicking someone out, so would kick on day 1.
If there were 2, both their wives would only see one other cheating husband, but neither would see him get kicked out on day one and deduce that there must be 2 cheaters, and the second must be their husband.
Hrmm I hadn't thought about it in that way. You could statistically get around that by saying that any permutation of the infinite number of characters (permutation might not be well defined now) would by expectation include an infinite number of each character, and then the "ordered" function would still work.
That still doesn't quite make it bogosort though. Oh well, fun brain exercise.
The monkey-problem is exactly bogosort, with the "ordering" of "is this letter meant to come after the preceding letter and before the next letter in a Shakespeare work".
I'd say the point holds on both sides. Whatever country your from, you should sort out your own issues before telling other countries, otherwise we enter a situation where it's countries telling each other "Do as I say, not as I do.
No, that doesn't get dynamically pulled from git every time you request it.
But it'd also take an admin about 15-30 seconds to type out the command to regenerate the archives from the git repos. Actually, I think 30s is probably extreme, I suspect they would have scripted the process. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just something like "makearchives.sh " and the archive is recreated from the git repo.
In response to DigiNotar incidences, some people are removing the root CA for DigiNotar from their computers. This way your computer will not trust _anything_ signed by DigiNotar.
With DNSSEC, if the people in charge of your DNS have an incident (hackers, malpractice or otherwise) which changes the "certificate" (for lack of a better word) for your website, you are stuck. There is no "root" certificate that you can remove.
Check the HTML. A div is created, 4 links to random sites inserted, and then said div is hidden via javascript. Presumably some SOE-aimed hack/spam/bot/thing.
Do you have data handy to back this up? I'm not doubting you, I believe this is true, but I want to convince others, and since I work at a uni, others are very doubting of any "facts" that are not substantiated.
How does the Sun manage a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth? I thought, looking at the gravitation pull of just the sun, that the field was given by 'g(r) = - G.m / (r^2)' where r is the radius/distance, G the gravitational constant, and m the mass of the object(sun in this case). Does the specific orbit of the moon somehow manage to keep it's "average" distance to the sun closer than that between the earth and the sun, somehow?
And if the Moon-Earth system is essentially a binary orbit, surely the Moon disappearing would have an influence on the Earth and vice-versa? My understanding of 'sphere of influence' has always been that if something outside the sphere is removed/destroyed/changed/eliminated, then the object in question feels no effect/sees no change, but removing mass from the Moon-Earth system would surely change the orbit in some manner?
I thought "sphere of influence" meant that, in your example, the Moon is not influenced by Earth at all (or at least, significantly). As in, even if the Earth were not there, the Moon would still be there and in its present orbit?
The way you wrote it, it sounds like the Earth does have an effect on the Moon, which I thought meant that the Moon was inside the Earth's sphere of influence?
I don't see how it'd take even a month to get that far. By the second attack, memos or something should be going company-wide, saying "People are trying to break into our networks, make sure stuff is secure". If it takes more than 4 weeks for an IT team to do a basic security audit (SQL injection means not using parameterized queries, so basic to spot and fairly simple to stop), then you simply haven't budgeted enough for IT. Which is a reason for the new problem but still a problem they had control over.
XBMC (without 4XBOX in the name) has dropped support for xbox. This group is re-integrating xbox support. So XBMC itself has dropped support, and this project without xbox support is irrelevant, I'd say.
On the other hand, I've always used Windows and only infected my desktop once in the past eight years, and that was thanks to a bad download. From the fact that they had to go to a technician to install 7, I'd say they simply don't know their way around a computer, Linux or Windows.
I think that's the point. If you do not know your way around a computer, Linux can be just as viable as Windows (possibly more-so according to the arguments made).
Yes, if you know your way around a computer, you can easily use Windows and not get virus. Same goes for Linux.
Personally I think the more appropriate slogan is "If we give up our freedoms, we have lost". Unfortunately, I don't think everyone is capable of understanding how we have "lost" when the terrorists haven't technically won either, because in general people aren't familiar with non-zero-sum games explained in such short phrases.
I never made any assumption about whether the system would collapse, and I'm not sure how it would seem like I did.
Here is my take on things. Assume we have a network, with a bunch of users sharing (so both uploading and downloading to each other) a particular object. If you are downloading from and uploading back to the system, you are using a peer-to-peer system. If you are only downloading, you are using the system as a server, and you are a client.
If you want to choose to only upload A, but not upload B but only download it, then for the instance where you are uploading A, you are using a peer-to-peer system, and for the instance where you are only downloading B, you are a client to the network.
I'm not sure what in particular you want with a BitTorrent client. Researchers have created clients that do not upload, and there is (or at least was) one out there by the name of "BitThief" that does not do any uploading at all, and there are enough open source clients that anyone with the ability, or money to hire someone with ability, could create their own. Of course, the issue arises when using these that because they do not upload, they are given low preference when a node decides to share out bandwidth.
Computer networks can be peer-to-peer. Something being peer-to-peer doesn't mean it has to be a computer network. In my eyes, if you are only downloading, and others are uploading to you, then you aren't operating on the same level as the others (as they are uploading, and you are not), which I believe makes them a "server" (or group of servers) and makes you simply a "client" requesting resources.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could. And with DC, you can willingly not share anything, and I'm pretty sure there are BitTorrent clients out there that don't upload, too.
However, in my eyes, as soon as you do this, you are no longer using peer-to-peer services. The idea behind them, to me, has always been a "shared" responsibility for the workload. If you just download from a network, then I would count you as a regular downloader, or user, of a server (or network of servers) and no longer using peer-to-peer services (as you are no longer acting as an equal).
I mean, sure, you can download from a service that "internally" runs as peer-to-peer. And by "internally" here I mean everyone who contributes to the service is contributing some of the workload, but that doesn't mean you are also acting as a peer.
For example, NTP runs as a peer-to-peer service, somewhat, in that many servers around the globe communicate to keep an accurate time. But if I sync my clock to some NTP server once a day, that doesn't mean I'm a peer. That just means I'm a user. Similarly, DNS runs, between servers, as a peer-to-peer service. But just because your browser does some address lookups doesn't make you a peer.
But that's just my take on it, if you're just applying "P2P" as a label, to all users of a given protocol or program that is aimed at P2P services, then the label by your own definition applies.
Well... technically, those are programs that don't require you to upload.
That also means they aren't P2P. The GP seems to have forgotten that P2P stands for peer-to-peer, and by definition means that there is no central server that everyone downloads from, but rather that each peer does it's own share of uploading and downloading.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of me thinks they're getting dangerously close to messing this up too much. A search for "automatic downloading of tv shows" actually leads to some reasonable articles showing how to set up automated downloads. I also know that software exists which can tie in to these and automatically sort tv shows and add them to libraries in XBMC or similar.
It's not going to be long before average Joe can install one piece of software, and from then on have "free" TV shows popping up on his home system whenever they air. As the generations get older too, you'll have less and less people who are used to the idea of "channels" on a TV even, and soon this will be the norm. People are switching because it's easier, cheaper or more convenient to pirate. What motivation (beyond legal repercussions) will be left when a majority of people are using free 1-click software packages to acquire TV shows?
Personally, I think if a cop doesn't "step up" that makes him part of the problem. The only good cops, in my ideal view of the world, are the ones who do "step up".
I didn't say there were 1kb pages on FB, I said each message would probably come in at under 1kb amortised.
A facebook message consisting of 160 characters would be less than 1kB (amortised). The usual cost of an SMS is between 10c and 25c. 10c per kB equates to $100 per MB.
In other words, telco profit margins on SMS when compared to FB messages are orders of magnitude smaller. It might be even worse, I've heard that SMS messages are sent in some form of "control" packet hence the 160 char limit, meaning that SMS overheads are (somewhat) essential to running the mobile network.
Without DNSSec though, it's fairly easy to redirect any DNS traffic. Allow ports 80 and 53, redirect them to a local server, and block anything else.
The firewall solution would probably require DPI. An easier solution would be to use Disconnect[1] which is a Chrome extension that blocks exactly this sort of thing.
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jeoacafpbcihiomhlakheieifhpjdfeo
10.
If there was only 1 cheating husband, his wife would see no one else kicking someone out, so would kick on day 1.
If there were 2, both their wives would only see one other cheating husband, but neither would see him get kicked out on day one and deduce that there must be 2 cheaters, and the second must be their husband.
Repeat.
Hrmm
I hadn't thought about it in that way. You could statistically get around that by saying that any permutation of the infinite number of characters (permutation might not be well defined now) would by expectation include an infinite number of each character, and then the "ordered" function would still work.
That still doesn't quite make it bogosort though. Oh well, fun brain exercise.
The monkey-problem is exactly bogosort, with the "ordering" of "is this letter meant to come after the preceding letter and before the next letter in a Shakespeare work".
I'd say the point holds on both sides. Whatever country your from, you should sort out your own issues before telling other countries, otherwise we enter a situation where it's countries telling each other "Do as I say, not as I do.
No, that doesn't get dynamically pulled from git every time you request it.
But it'd also take an admin about 15-30 seconds to type out the command to regenerate the archives from the git repos. Actually, I think 30s is probably extreme, I suspect they would have scripted the process. Wouldn't be surprised if it's just something like "makearchives.sh " and the archive is recreated from the git repo.
In response to DigiNotar incidences, some people are removing the root CA for DigiNotar from their computers. This way your computer will not trust _anything_ signed by DigiNotar.
With DNSSEC, if the people in charge of your DNS have an incident (hackers, malpractice or otherwise) which changes the "certificate" (for lack of a better word) for your website, you are stuck. There is no "root" certificate that you can remove.
Check the HTML. A div is created, 4 links to random sites inserted, and then said div is hidden via javascript. Presumably some SOE-aimed hack/spam/bot/thing.
Do you have data handy to back this up? I'm not doubting you, I believe this is true, but I want to convince others, and since I work at a uni, others are very doubting of any "facts" that are not substantiated.
How does the Sun manage a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth? I thought, looking at the gravitation pull of just the sun, that the field was given by 'g(r) = - G.m / (r^2)' where r is the radius/distance, G the gravitational constant, and m the mass of the object(sun in this case). Does the specific orbit of the moon somehow manage to keep it's "average" distance to the sun closer than that between the earth and the sun, somehow?
And if the Moon-Earth system is essentially a binary orbit, surely the Moon disappearing would have an influence on the Earth and vice-versa? My understanding of 'sphere of influence' has always been that if something outside the sphere is removed/destroyed/changed/eliminated, then the object in question feels no effect/sees no change, but removing mass from the Moon-Earth system would surely change the orbit in some manner?
I thought "sphere of influence" meant that, in your example, the Moon is not influenced by Earth at all (or at least, significantly). As in, even if the Earth were not there, the Moon would still be there and in its present orbit?
The way you wrote it, it sounds like the Earth does have an effect on the Moon, which I thought meant that the Moon was inside the Earth's sphere of influence?
I don't see how it'd take even a month to get that far. By the second attack, memos or something should be going company-wide, saying "People are trying to break into our networks, make sure stuff is secure".
If it takes more than 4 weeks for an IT team to do a basic security audit (SQL injection means not using parameterized queries, so basic to spot and fairly simple to stop), then you simply haven't budgeted enough for IT. Which is a reason for the new problem but still a problem they had control over.
He did bring Hope and Change. He brought the hope that things would change. That's close enough, right?
XBMC (without 4XBOX in the name) has dropped support for xbox. This group is re-integrating xbox support. So XBMC itself has dropped support, and this project without xbox support is irrelevant, I'd say.
On the other hand, I've always used Windows and only infected my desktop once in the past eight years, and that was thanks to a bad download. From the fact that they had to go to a technician to install 7, I'd say they simply don't know their way around a computer, Linux or Windows.
I think that's the point. If you do not know your way around a computer, Linux can be just as viable as Windows (possibly more-so according to the arguments made).
Yes, if you know your way around a computer, you can easily use Windows and not get virus. Same goes for Linux.
Personally I think the more appropriate slogan is "If we give up our freedoms, we have lost". Unfortunately, I don't think everyone is capable of understanding how we have "lost" when the terrorists haven't technically won either, because in general people aren't familiar with non-zero-sum games explained in such short phrases.
I never made any assumption about whether the system would collapse, and I'm not sure how it would seem like I did.
Here is my take on things. Assume we have a network, with a bunch of users sharing (so both uploading and downloading to each other) a particular object.
If you are downloading from and uploading back to the system, you are using a peer-to-peer system.
If you are only downloading, you are using the system as a server, and you are a client.
If you want to choose to only upload A, but not upload B but only download it, then for the instance where you are uploading A, you are using a peer-to-peer system, and for the instance where you are only downloading B, you are a client to the network.
I'm not sure what in particular you want with a BitTorrent client. Researchers have created clients that do not upload, and there is (or at least was) one out there by the name of "BitThief" that does not do any uploading at all, and there are enough open source clients that anyone with the ability, or money to hire someone with ability, could create their own. Of course, the issue arises when using these that because they do not upload, they are given low preference when a node decides to share out bandwidth.
Computer networks can be peer-to-peer. Something being peer-to-peer doesn't mean it has to be a computer network. In my eyes, if you are only downloading, and others are uploading to you, then you aren't operating on the same level as the others (as they are uploading, and you are not), which I believe makes them a "server" (or group of servers) and makes you simply a "client" requesting resources.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could. And with DC, you can willingly not share anything, and I'm pretty sure there are BitTorrent clients out there that don't upload, too.
However, in my eyes, as soon as you do this, you are no longer using peer-to-peer services. The idea behind them, to me, has always been a "shared" responsibility for the workload. If you just download from a network, then I would count you as a regular downloader, or user, of a server (or network of servers) and no longer using peer-to-peer services (as you are no longer acting as an equal).
I mean, sure, you can download from a service that "internally" runs as peer-to-peer. And by "internally" here I mean everyone who contributes to the service is contributing some of the workload, but that doesn't mean you are also acting as a peer.
For example, NTP runs as a peer-to-peer service, somewhat, in that many servers around the globe communicate to keep an accurate time. But if I sync my clock to some NTP server once a day, that doesn't mean I'm a peer. That just means I'm a user. Similarly, DNS runs, between servers, as a peer-to-peer service. But just because your browser does some address lookups doesn't make you a peer.
But that's just my take on it, if you're just applying "P2P" as a label, to all users of a given protocol or program that is aimed at P2P services, then the label by your own definition applies.
Well ... technically, those are programs that don't require you to upload.
That also means they aren't P2P. The GP seems to have forgotten that P2P stands for peer-to-peer, and by definition means that there is no central server that everyone downloads from, but rather that each peer does it's own share of uploading and downloading.