I mean "yes" in the boolean/this-is-Slashdot sense of the word: "yes, we can [either] ((change our business model) or (cease doing business [until we decide to change our business model]))."
In other words, they will comply with the law without arguement - but they may (or rather, will) do so by suspending operations.
I'll settle for a very basic computer (clock, simple games, light source, etc.) plus a simple interface to selected iPhone apps, such as getting notifications, sending canned responses to texts, etc. I don't expect much in the way of zorch on the actual watch.
If I read you right, you are saying some audiophiles can tell the difference between a very expensive Ethernet cable and a normal-priced cable that meets the spec (with enough over-engineering so it continues to meet the spec after installation and in the face of environmental changes and normal levels of RF-noise)? I'm just not seeing how this is possible. Well, MAYBE if the cable is running through a very hostile environment well outside of what a "normal" Ethernet cable is designed to handle. But if that's you, then you've got bigger issues to worry about.
Oh, the audiophiles do have a point about cheap Ethernet cable: Every now and then, you will find cable that actually does not meet the spec. You will also occasionally find cable that barely meets the spec but as soon as you bend it a few time and the wire-strands start to break, it drop below spec. If you buy a reputable brand from a reputable vendor, you shouldn't have this problem. But in most markets you won't need to pay much if any premium to get a "known reputable" cable vs. "it tests okay out of the box but will it last over time" brand.
They need to run their server on an analog computer and install a special "real analog modem" that stretches the sound out to fit in the 20-2000Hz range and sends it directly over the phone line as a pure analog signal. Their customers will need to buy analog computers and analog recording devices and of course one of those special "modems." Only then will their users get the best sound possible coming out of their $10,000 home audio system.
Yea, it will be more expensive and keeping it temperature- and humidity-stable will be a pain in the rear, but it will be worth it.
As least that's what my friend's second cousin's son-in-law ex-con school chum says. He should know, he sells the stuff.
If 2GB is a "debatable" target, the next "step up" is a 4GB USB, not a 4.7GB DVD/ISO image.
Actually, just under 4GB if you are going to create an ISO image. You need to leave a little room on the USB stick for boot sectors, UEFI boot partitions, and other overhead so the end user can turn the ISO into a bootable USB stick. So either set the limit for the ISO image at 1.9GB or 3.9GB, but not 4.7GB.
Also, if the ISO itself is bigger than 4GB, it can't be stored on a FAT-32 formatted USB stick. Many people still use FAT-32 for cross-platform storage devices.
In a perfect world, the prosecutor or police would know the law so well that he wouldn't ever submit a warrant that wouldn't be approved if the judges knew the law, took the time to learn the particulars of the case, and followed it to the letter of the law as it applies to that case. If that's the case, then WOO-HOO, "no rejections" is a good thing.
I'm not that naive. In a "good" world, this would account for 90-99.9% of "non-rejections."
I'm not even that naive, especially when it comes to secret courts or warrant applications that remain sealed forever (whether rejected or not). But I'm sure *some* of the non-rejections are because the police or prosecutor did their homework and only asked for warrants that any reasonable, knowledgeable, fair/impartial judge who took the time to learn the case would approve. I'm naively hoping that this accounts for the vast majority of "non-rejections" but we, the general public, will probably never know for certain.
As for the not-as-close-to-zero-percent-as-I-would-like of cases where the judges either rubber-stamp or worse, collude with prosecutors, to sign a legally-unjustified warrant, I can only hope that a future Congress, appellate court, or Supreme Court will reign in the practice and that a new opportunity to appeal will be granted to those who were unjustly harmed by the unjust warrants.
The IRS doesn't have enforcement powers against banks in most of the world. Short of going after the country that is hosting the tax haven, the worst the US government can do is put the bank on the "bad-boy" list, denying it the right to do business with law-abiding US businesses or directly connect to the US banking system. If the bank is a tax-haven bank, it probably doesn't care.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the tax havens exist in countries where their own government doesn't object.
True, it is very hard to prevent a leak if your people lose faith in you.
But air-gapping makes an un-assisted attack by a hostile outside party much, much harder. The outside party is reduce to only a couple of options: Dupe/social-engineer the people into doing their bidding (think stuxnet and the poisoned USB drives), or gaining physical access. That leaves a much lower attack surface than an internet-connected system.
In limited cases - mostly those involving legal issues or to prevent real-world harm - The Wikimedia Foundation steps in and "dictates from on high."
Granted, that's not exactly "external" as the WMF trustees are elected by the community.
The WMF also steps in - whether willingly or not - when a court orders them to do so or, more commonly, when their in-house lawyers tell them they have to step in or they will likely be hauled into court and lose or when it's so obvious that they would lose they don't even need to ask the lawyers.
There are several ways to send emoji, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these is actually being done today:
* Create a very large, expandable globally-unique-ID-like emoji-lookup service that's open to anyone: You want to use a made-up emoji or symbol or arbitrary image? You register it with a central authority, who gives you a globally-unique ID. When you want to use it, you send the globally-unique-ID as the "character" in your text message. If the recipient doesn't have it cached, it looks it up before displaying it. Fonts won't matter, since it's a single image, not a "letter."
* For suitably-small images, just transmit the image in-line with the message. Sure, that will turn just about every text into a multi-media-message but hey, at least the recipient won't be displaying the wrong thing and he won't be dependent on a central look-up database.
Combine these two approaches: * When you send a text with emojis you've never sent or received before, you create your own "I hope it's globally unique" ID based on the current time and a hash of the emoji and some randomness. Then, when you send the message, you send both the "hopefully globally unique ID" AND the hash where the image will be instead of the image, then you append the actual image or images to the end of the message. The second time you send a message using the same emojis (or any time someone who has ever received that emoji re-sends it), you re-use the "hopefully globally unique ID" and the hash from before. If the recipient has received the emoji in an earlier message (from you or from someone else who got it from you originally), they will have it cached and will be able to display it without having to wait for the images to be received. You get the speed of not having to send the images, the reliability you get when you send the images, and you aren't dependent on any central authority. You run the very small risk of an accidental hash collision and the maybe-not-so-small risk of a deliberate one.
We may have plateaued for now but I think mobile phone/computers of 2021 will be radically more feature-rich than today's phones, and those in 2026 will be at least another generation beyond that.
The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all - and what little research has been done suggests the opposite might be the case, but it's an internally consistent belief.
If you mean "no scientific, statistical evidence" that the availability of child porn leads to a net increase in future child abuse by people not involved in the original production, you are probably right. More study is probably needed.
However, there is probably ample anecdotal evidence to support one-off cases where access to child porn led a particular individual down a path where he abused a child where it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have even considered doing so otherwise ("I never even considered abusing a kid until I saw child porn and felt the rush, but eventually I had to find out abusing my own kid that way would be an even bigger rush. I wouldn't have even considered it if I had never seen child porn."). There is probably plenty of anecdotal evidence of one-off cases where the availability of child porn acted as an "outlet" that helped someone NOT abuse a child they had access to ("I want to feel the sexual high, if I have to abuse my own kid I will, but thanks to child porn I can get that same high and not abuse my own kid, so I won't.")
"By the 2030s we will have nanobots that can go into a brain non-invasively through the capillaries, connect to our neocortex and basically connect it to a synthetic neocortex that works the same way in the cloud.
Sorry, but I don't want to be that tightly-coupled to "the cloud" - it makes the border between "me/self" and "the cloud/other" too loosely-defined.
At least today when I plug into "the intelligence cloud" ["the intelligence cloud" being any information I get from others directly or indirectly, including from recordings from the past - and recognizing that, for other people, everything I say and do that they are or could ever become aware of is part of "the cloud" for them] there's still a pretty bright line between "me/my 'self'/my identity" and everything else, just as it has been since the human race began (if not before).
Yes, there is some blurring - it's possible for a skilled person to manipulate a person or for that matter a whole bunch of people without their being aware of it so they are willing to say or do things that, but for the manipulation, they would never approve of (e.g. a cHarIsmaTic poLitician riling up Enough suppoRt to become dictator and using his new powers to do great harm, all with the support of most of his people) - but it's not nearly at the level that a "plugged in secondary brain that is essentially part of the 'cloud'" would be.
No thanks. I'll take nanobots that keep my brain working, and I'll take nanobots that improve it in a self-contained way, and I might even take nanobots that "report out" certain well-defined bits of information needed to help my doctor keep me in good health/keep me alive, and I might take the nanobots that restore lost abilities (especially the ability to see, hear, and speak), but what this guy proposes is well into the range of "DO NOT WANT," at least for me.
"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."
-Douglas Adams
As for rodent- or for that matter pandimensional-being-porn, I guess to each his own.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean "yes" in the boolean/this-is-Slashdot sense of the word: "yes, we can [either] ((change our business model) or (cease doing business [until we decide to change our business model]))."
In other words, they will comply with the law without arguement - but they may (or rather, will) do so by suspending operations.
Austin voters just said "we don't like your current business model, change it or stop doing business until you do."
The companies replied "okay, we can do that."
By the way, there are talks in the works. I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies come back within a year, under some sort of compromise.
I'll settle for a very basic computer (clock, simple games, light source, etc.) plus a simple interface to selected iPhone apps, such as getting notifications, sending canned responses to texts, etc. I don't expect much in the way of zorch on the actual watch.
If I read you right, you are saying some audiophiles can tell the difference between a very expensive Ethernet cable and a normal-priced cable that meets the spec (with enough over-engineering so it continues to meet the spec after installation and in the face of environmental changes and normal levels of RF-noise)? I'm just not seeing how this is possible. Well, MAYBE if the cable is running through a very hostile environment well outside of what a "normal" Ethernet cable is designed to handle. But if that's you, then you've got bigger issues to worry about.
Oh, the audiophiles do have a point about cheap Ethernet cable: Every now and then, you will find cable that actually does not meet the spec. You will also occasionally find cable that barely meets the spec but as soon as you bend it a few time and the wire-strands start to break, it drop below spec. If you buy a reputable brand from a reputable vendor, you shouldn't have this problem. But in most markets you won't need to pay much if any premium to get a "known reputable" cable vs. "it tests okay out of the box but will it last over time" brand.
They need to run their server on an analog computer and install a special "real analog modem" that stretches the sound out to fit in the 20-2000Hz range and sends it directly over the phone line as a pure analog signal. Their customers will need to buy analog computers and analog recording devices and of course one of those special "modems." Only then will their users get the best sound possible coming out of their $10,000 home audio system.
Yea, it will be more expensive and keeping it temperature- and humidity-stable will be a pain in the rear, but it will be worth it.
As least that's what my friend's second cousin's son-in-law ex-con school chum says. He should know, he sells the stuff.
If 2GB is a "debatable" target, the next "step up" is a 4GB USB, not a 4.7GB DVD/ISO image.
Actually, just under 4GB if you are going to create an ISO image. You need to leave a little room on the USB stick for boot sectors, UEFI boot partitions, and other overhead so the end user can turn the ISO into a bootable USB stick. So either set the limit for the ISO image at 1.9GB or 3.9GB, but not 4.7GB.
Also, if the ISO itself is bigger than 4GB, it can't be stored on a FAT-32 formatted USB stick. Many people still use FAT-32 for cross-platform storage devices.
In a perfect world, the prosecutor or police would know the law so well that he wouldn't ever submit a warrant that wouldn't be approved if the judges knew the law, took the time to learn the particulars of the case, and followed it to the letter of the law as it applies to that case. If that's the case, then WOO-HOO, "no rejections" is a good thing.
I'm not that naive. In a "good" world, this would account for 90-99.9% of "non-rejections."
I'm not even that naive, especially when it comes to secret courts or warrant applications that remain sealed forever (whether rejected or not). But I'm sure *some* of the non-rejections are because the police or prosecutor did their homework and only asked for warrants that any reasonable, knowledgeable, fair/impartial judge who took the time to learn the case would approve. I'm naively hoping that this accounts for the vast majority of "non-rejections" but we, the general public, will probably never know for certain.
As for the not-as-close-to-zero-percent-as-I-would-like of cases where the judges either rubber-stamp or worse, collude with prosecutors, to sign a legally-unjustified warrant, I can only hope that a future Congress, appellate court, or Supreme Court will reign in the practice and that a new opportunity to appeal will be granted to those who were unjustly harmed by the unjust warrants.
"...the latest victim being U.S. toy maker Maisto"
"Fortunately, there's a tool that can help users decrypt CryptXXX affected files for free. "
For real ransomware that's not just a toy, go to a web site of a durable-goods manufacturer.
The IRS doesn't have enforcement powers against banks in most of the world. Short of going after the country that is hosting the tax haven, the worst the US government can do is put the bank on the "bad-boy" list, denying it the right to do business with law-abiding US businesses or directly connect to the US banking system. If the bank is a tax-haven bank, it probably doesn't care.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the tax havens exist in countries where their own government doesn't object.
True, it is very hard to prevent a leak if your people lose faith in you.
But air-gapping makes an un-assisted attack by a hostile outside party much, much harder. The outside party is reduce to only a couple of options: Dupe/social-engineer the people into doing their bidding (think stuxnet and the poisoned USB drives), or gaining physical access. That leaves a much lower attack surface than an internet-connected system.
... if you use Monster (TM) power cables.
I predict that future tax havens won't store client information online.
The "true, beneficial ownership" information will all be stored on a non-connected computer network or maybe even in paper ledgers.
Good luck getting at that without walking in and physically stealing it (or bribing/coercing a bank employee to make you a copy).
But I bet it comes with an Etherkiller cable.
Well played.
baconsterminate! baconsterminate! hashbrownsterminate! pancakesterminate!
In limited cases - mostly those involving legal issues or to prevent real-world harm - The Wikimedia Foundation steps in and "dictates from on high."
Granted, that's not exactly "external" as the WMF trustees are elected by the community.
The WMF also steps in - whether willingly or not - when a court orders them to do so or, more commonly, when their in-house lawyers tell them they have to step in or they will likely be hauled into court and lose or when it's so obvious that they would lose they don't even need to ask the lawyers.
Wow, a security robot and an artist too? Cool!
Does it draw using its victims' blood or does it use crayons and art pencils like most human artists?
Drawing of some Daleks, NOT made by this security robot
There are several ways to send emoji, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of these is actually being done today:
* Create a very large, expandable globally-unique-ID-like emoji-lookup service that's open to anyone: You want to use a made-up emoji or symbol or arbitrary image? You register it with a central authority, who gives you a globally-unique ID. When you want to use it, you send the globally-unique-ID as the "character" in your text message. If the recipient doesn't have it cached, it looks it up before displaying it. Fonts won't matter, since it's a single image, not a "letter."
* For suitably-small images, just transmit the image in-line with the message. Sure, that will turn just about every text into a multi-media-message but hey, at least the recipient won't be displaying the wrong thing and he won't be dependent on a central look-up database.
Combine these two approaches:
* When you send a text with emojis you've never sent or received before, you create your own "I hope it's globally unique" ID based on the current time and a hash of the emoji and some randomness. Then, when you send the message, you send both the "hopefully globally unique ID" AND the hash where the image will be instead of the image, then you append the actual image or images to the end of the message. The second time you send a message using the same emojis (or any time someone who has ever received that emoji re-sends it), you re-use the "hopefully globally unique ID" and the hash from before. If the recipient has received the emoji in an earlier message (from you or from someone else who got it from you originally), they will have it cached and will be able to display it without having to wait for the images to be received. You get the speed of not having to send the images, the reliability you get when you send the images, and you aren't dependent on any central authority. You run the very small risk of an accidental hash collision and the maybe-not-so-small risk of a deliberate one.
Save Unicode for actual characters.
We may have plateaued for now but I think mobile phone/computers of 2021 will be radically more feature-rich than today's phones, and those in 2026 will be at least another generation beyond that.
There, fixed that for you.
-Nelson Mandela Muntz
The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all - and what little research has been done suggests the opposite might be the case, but it's an internally consistent belief.
If you mean "no scientific, statistical evidence" that the availability of child porn leads to a net increase in future child abuse by people not involved in the original production, you are probably right. More study is probably needed.
However, there is probably ample anecdotal evidence to support one-off cases where access to child porn led a particular individual down a path where he abused a child where it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have even considered doing so otherwise ("I never even considered abusing a kid until I saw child porn and felt the rush, but eventually I had to find out abusing my own kid that way would be an even bigger rush. I wouldn't have even considered it if I had never seen child porn."). There is probably plenty of anecdotal evidence of one-off cases where the availability of child porn acted as an "outlet" that helped someone NOT abuse a child they had access to ("I want to feel the sexual high, if I have to abuse my own kid I will, but thanks to child porn I can get that same high and not abuse my own kid, so I won't.")
"By the 2030s we will have nanobots that can go into a brain non-invasively through the capillaries, connect to our neocortex and basically connect it to a synthetic neocortex that works the same way in the cloud.
Sorry, but I don't want to be that tightly-coupled to "the cloud" - it makes the border between "me/self" and "the cloud/other" too loosely-defined.
At least today when I plug into "the intelligence cloud" ["the intelligence cloud" being any information I get from others directly or indirectly, including from recordings from the past - and recognizing that, for other people, everything I say and do that they are or could ever become aware of is part of "the cloud" for them] there's still a pretty bright line between "me/my 'self'/my identity" and everything else, just as it has been since the human race began (if not before).
Yes, there is some blurring - it's possible for a skilled person to manipulate a person or for that matter a whole bunch of people without their being aware of it so they are willing to say or do things that, but for the manipulation, they would never approve of (e.g. a cHarIsmaTic poLitician riling up Enough suppoRt to become dictator and using his new powers to do great harm, all with the support of most of his people) - but it's not nearly at the level that a "plugged in secondary brain that is essentially part of the 'cloud'" would be.
No thanks. I'll take nanobots that keep my brain working, and I'll take nanobots that improve it in a self-contained way, and I might even take nanobots that "report out" certain well-defined bits of information needed to help my doctor keep me in good health/keep me alive, and I might take the nanobots that restore lost abilities (especially the ability to see, hear, and speak), but what this guy proposes is well into the range of "DO NOT WANT," at least for me.
Other apps have - including one on my non-Android phone - have been able to do this for awhile now.
"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."
-Douglas Adams
As for rodent- or for that matter pandimensional-being-porn, I guess to each his own.