The relative power of the output of significantly above average intellects of the world massively dwarfs the monetary assets of the 'one percenters'. Give me the intellectual output of 20 grade students of my choice and I can own the white house and Greece in a decade.
If not by the FBI, then by various investigators (opposition research). Skeletons don't always restrict public service, you just need to know about them to handle them.
Considering left/right is an (outdated) method of specifying economic values, claiming (mis)usage of an civil rights trampling law to quell protests is wholly illogical.
I see that you are attempting to make the troll 2.0 look stupid, by criticizing the very nature of trolling 2.0.
Trolling 2.0 is an attempt to herd a segment of the readership of the materials to be caught in an uncomfortable zone of cognitive dissonance. In this case, it is between their confirmation bias ( the bias is towards low level technologies) and their desire to not be associated with stupidity. This was poorly executed, but in an ideal case, a significant segment of the target would, for a brief moment, be highly inclined to accept and internalize the stupidity, then a painful moment of doubt is to occur, etc, etc, etc
10 year old equipment? No. But NT4 was released 15 years ago, and was expected to work on hardware considerably older than that. In the mid 90s, security was a joke. Every operating system had a plethora of unpatched, often public, remote root vulnerabilities.
The real question is, "Is there any good reason this was never changed?".
OpenBSD WAS more secure in-so-far as its default installation was and is very minimal, and somewhat security oriented. When this was compared to relatively bloated default installations of other distributions/operating systems, it was quite reasonable to consider OpenBSD more secure.
However, as the number of programmer hours on other systems continues to increase relative to OpenBSD, it is unlikely that OpenBSD is significantly more secure than some other modern operating systems (even in this biased criteria).
.... he was implying that perhaps 'cyberattacks' were the method by which sufficient wheel-schematics were acquired, not that it is immoral or odd that they would attempt to acquire such.
Trolls will be trolls. The only correct response is to give them the minimal level of rights required by the relevant statutes, and to PLEASE AVOID FEEDING THE TROLLS.
>anyone who tells you otherwise is in to voodoo and black magic or trying to make some profit.
Not true. Give me a budget of 30 million USD, and I can recover at least 10 sequential bits with 80% certainty.
Terrorist watchlist == reasonable suspicion (in theory, obviously this doesn't hold in practice)
Therefore (with the flawed assumption assumed true) if the name is on terrorist watchlist, you have reasonable suspicion, and can apply that in your dealings with them.
HFT provides liquidity to the market and simply shifts who happens to take the arbitrage profits caused by information lag. It used to be humans on the trading floor, now its machines next door. When an exchange turns electronic, HFT becomes a natural way for the market to more efficiently manage discrepancies in prices. HFT does not damage the profits of long term investors (beyond, perhaps, having them pay 1 cent extra per share or similar). HFT simply puts certain exploitative, human day traders out of business.
An HFT strategy can be defined as a trading strategy where profit is a function of latency. If you were to tax HFT so it were unprofitable, the markets would become inefficient. If you were to ban trading below a certain frequency, nothing would change, except the algorithms that are successful.
You are speaking from ignorance.
The article in this case is not particularly clear, but the traders in this case were essentially causing a *broker* to modify their price using fraudulent bidding.
This was not some clever day trader beating the HFT firms on the open market using a clever hack. This was a group of individuals tricking their broker in to offering them the wrong prices.
The fact is that the actions the human traders took could be considered similar to calling up a broker, lying about how much money you have, and placing a fake order to manipulate pricing, then calling on the other line, and exploiting this price change. Or it could be considered similar to tricking a poorly programmed ATM to give you too much money. There was an *intent to defraud* IB by the traders. Norwegian law happened to recognize this strongly enough to convict.
In America, they would have gotten away with it, IB would have fixed the error, and we would have moved on, but this is only because of the lack of regulation of finance in America.
You don't know what you are talking about.
HFT provides liquidity. It allows more investors to freely move in and out of positions, with reduced fears of slippage. HFT takes money from exploitative (human) day traders and other HFT traders, not from investors.
But your signature belies your ignorance on the entire academic and societal concepts of modern finance.
No. But if the hash didn't match, an astute user would have noticed. And if the git version and the tarball didn't match, a developer would notice.
So the hacker could have inserted a backdoor into git, but they would be noticed by a dev. They could have inserted a backdoor into the tarball and not modified the hash, but they would be noticed by a user. They could have inserted a backdoor into the tarball AND modified the hash, but a dev would have noticed.
If you really want to get a backdoor into the kernel source code, do what the NSA does, contribute it.
Slashdot Mirror
The relative power of the output of significantly above average intellects of the world massively dwarfs the monetary assets of the 'one percenters'. Give me the intellectual output of 20 grade students of my choice and I can own the white house and Greece in a decade.
Yeah, why do we keep demonizing the usage of poppies and hemlock! They are natural therefore good!
If not by the FBI, then by various investigators (opposition research). Skeletons don't always restrict public service, you just need to know about them to handle them.
Rapidshare does not pay users. Rapidshare responds to takedown requests. Rapidshare has been active in court.
Considering left/right is an (outdated) method of specifying economic values, claiming (mis)usage of an civil rights trampling law to quell protests is wholly illogical.
Difference: The reference implementation is open source.
I see that you are attempting to make the troll 2.0 look stupid, by criticizing the very nature of trolling 2.0.
Trolling 2.0 is an attempt to herd a segment of the readership of the materials to be caught in an uncomfortable zone of cognitive dissonance. In this case, it is between their confirmation bias ( the bias is towards low level technologies) and their desire to not be associated with stupidity. This was poorly executed, but in an ideal case, a significant segment of the target would, for a brief moment, be highly inclined to accept and internalize the stupidity, then a painful moment of doubt is to occur, etc, etc, etc
So that's Google's master plan for Android dominance.
for each phone: id = secure_get_uuid() phone.flash(id) db.add(id)
But this was a beating for copyright infringement-- a clear case of interstate commerce.
10 year old equipment? No. But NT4 was released 15 years ago, and was expected to work on hardware considerably older than that. In the mid 90s, security was a joke. Every operating system had a plethora of unpatched, often public, remote root vulnerabilities.
The real question is, "Is there any good reason this was never changed?".
OpenBSD WAS more secure in-so-far as its default installation was and is very minimal, and somewhat security oriented. When this was compared to relatively bloated default installations of other distributions/operating systems, it was quite reasonable to consider OpenBSD more secure.
However, as the number of programmer hours on other systems continues to increase relative to OpenBSD, it is unlikely that OpenBSD is significantly more secure than some other modern operating systems (even in this biased criteria).
.... he was implying that perhaps 'cyberattacks' were the method by which sufficient wheel-schematics were acquired, not that it is immoral or odd that they would attempt to acquire such.
I have it right here:
*
> But then I'm not sure that anything can truely be done "perfectly". Python.
Trolls will be trolls. The only correct response is to give them the minimal level of rights required by the relevant statutes, and to PLEASE AVOID FEEDING THE TROLLS.
False. The scale is discrete, therefore it will not necessarily always be possible to define a top 5% within reasonable margins of error.
>anyone who tells you otherwise is in to voodoo and black magic or trying to make some profit. Not true. Give me a budget of 30 million USD, and I can recover at least 10 sequential bits with 80% certainty.
Terrorist watchlist == reasonable suspicion (in theory, obviously this doesn't hold in practice) Therefore (with the flawed assumption assumed true) if the name is on terrorist watchlist, you have reasonable suspicion, and can apply that in your dealings with them.
It's a server used in the stampede cluster.
HFT provides liquidity to the market and simply shifts who happens to take the arbitrage profits caused by information lag. It used to be humans on the trading floor, now its machines next door. When an exchange turns electronic, HFT becomes a natural way for the market to more efficiently manage discrepancies in prices. HFT does not damage the profits of long term investors (beyond, perhaps, having them pay 1 cent extra per share or similar). HFT simply puts certain exploitative, human day traders out of business.
An HFT strategy can be defined as a trading strategy where profit is a function of latency. If you were to tax HFT so it were unprofitable, the markets would become inefficient. If you were to ban trading below a certain frequency, nothing would change, except the algorithms that are successful.
You are speaking from ignorance.
The article in this case is not particularly clear, but the traders in this case were essentially causing a *broker* to modify their price using fraudulent bidding.
This was not some clever day trader beating the HFT firms on the open market using a clever hack. This was a group of individuals tricking their broker in to offering them the wrong prices.
The fact is that the actions the human traders took could be considered similar to calling up a broker, lying about how much money you have, and placing a fake order to manipulate pricing, then calling on the other line, and exploiting this price change. Or it could be considered similar to tricking a poorly programmed ATM to give you too much money. There was an *intent to defraud* IB by the traders. Norwegian law happened to recognize this strongly enough to convict.
In America, they would have gotten away with it, IB would have fixed the error, and we would have moved on, but this is only because of the lack of regulation of finance in America.
You don't know what you are talking about. HFT provides liquidity. It allows more investors to freely move in and out of positions, with reduced fears of slippage. HFT takes money from exploitative (human) day traders and other HFT traders, not from investors. But your signature belies your ignorance on the entire academic and societal concepts of modern finance.
Meanwhile you are lynching negros.
No. But if the hash didn't match, an astute user would have noticed. And if the git version and the tarball didn't match, a developer would notice. So the hacker could have inserted a backdoor into git, but they would be noticed by a dev. They could have inserted a backdoor into the tarball and not modified the hash, but they would be noticed by a user. They could have inserted a backdoor into the tarball AND modified the hash, but a dev would have noticed. If you really want to get a backdoor into the kernel source code, do what the NSA does, contribute it.