I've been wondering when I'd start actually seeing these crop up here. This is purely to boost the site's google rating. Spam blockers and web filters have been blocking these guys for weeks now. Does Google ignore the content on here rated 0 or below? It should.
Just so you know, VirtualBox has full support for OS X Server, and Apple sells OS X Server without hardware (straight license) in a configuration to run in a virtualized environment. The "can't run OS X that way" was from when they still sold blades.
Of course, it's possible they only do these agreements with real enterprises; I haven't seen what they put as conditions on the small volume server licenses.
Here's an idea: why not make English an official language of the United States. English is already the unofficial language used when doing international business, and it is also the language most often used in science.
If Pakistan can have English as their official language then why not the United States?
Because "official languages" are languages used by government, not languages people are forced to use with ER after severe head trauma. "Sorry, you have to communicate only in English" doesn't sound like something someone dedicated to saving lives is going to want to have to say.
However, this system seems to imply that people whose stronger languages aren't English are literate enough in those other languages to comprehend the feedback in not only triage, but a complete medical diagnostic. I find this a bit of wishful thinking. But if the device can actually pull it off, it's price tag is extremely cheap.
Re:Possible fix for "I didn't know I was BCC'd"
on
The Death of BCC
·
· Score: 1
I think email clients should be set to not be able to reply to all by default if the recipient isn't in the "To" list. This would fix most headaches caused by BCC.
...and for those arguing that it is, the real difference is that you didn't get THEIR secret, you derived your own formula by analyzing their product. If you discovered that some chemical engineer from Coca Cola had left his chemical composition documentation on the bar when he went home, and you looked at it and reproduced the formula from it, that WOULD be violation of trade secrets (in some places).
I thought "You could even make separate queues for TCP, UDP, ICMP" should cover that -- BT defaults to TCP, so TV and phone, which use UDP, should work just fine. Sure, you can switch BT to using UDP, but anyone doing that is going to know why everything else is choppy -- they're going to assume it's their torrents and throttle them themselves.
There might be some problems with the way UDP ports are opened/closed, however; this style of QoS might only work well via persistent protocols.
It's more difficult online though; you have to teach them that "Mrs. Hill" in that chatroom they like to chat in (who just happens to be their teacher at school) is not necessarily the same "Mrs. Hill" attempting to contact them over MSN Messenger. Similarly, you have to teach your kids not to trust the Internet itself -- for instance, when that chatroom all their friends have signed up for wants their age, phone number, address, name of school, and then wants you to enter all your extra-curricular activities, friends, pictures, etc. and keep your event calendar on there, you might trust all your "friends", but you need to trust your friend's "friends", as well as those running the chatroom, and also need to trust that they take your privacy seriously, and aren't leaking/selling your data to someone else (and aren't attempting to cover it up if it happens accidentally).
THIS level of abstraction is infuriatingly difficult to teach to children (to many adults too -- see how well Facebook is doing).
Also, when you regularly talk to your kids, you find out pretty fast when something's up, because they actively don't tell you about it. This is different than lying about it or hiding it from you; kids are very good at hiding things from their parents. But when you have a safe environment for them to communicate in, they tell you a lot more than just the things they talk about. They'll ask you questions that, put together, tell you a bit about what's going on. If you create an environment for them where they feel safer hiding things from you than just not talking about them, THEN you've failed, and must resort to talking to others about them and using keyloggers, etc. in order to find out who your kid really is. It's almost impossible to take this path and get back to the "take an interest in the kids and talk" kind of lifestyle however.
If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.
As someone who considered adopting, let me say that I strongly disagree. Adopting is expensive. Adopting involves a large up-front outlay. Adopting usually means that you're getting a child whose infancy you didn't get to share, and they've already had their core personality formed by someone else (including issues created by parental substance abuse, etc.). If you can get past all these issues, then you'd choose to adopt. If any one of these is an insurmountable hurdle for you, natural childbirth is cheap, easy, and you don't have to pay for it until later (plus, you don't have social services monitoring you to verify that you're raising the kids the way THEY want you to).
There are many reasons for wanting to have children that don't involve the voyeur or "life extension" drives. One, for example, is the puppy/pony drive. People want someone cute to take care of and spend time with. There's also the "personal value" drive -- some people feel like they've already made a mess of their own life, and want the opportunity, not to do it over again, but to do something worthwhile with their own life. These are the people that most often adopt, but sometimes, mostly based on the above hurdles, adoption is too difficult a barrier to entry for them compared to childbirth.
Plus, people have a genetic predisposition to self-reproduce. They also have a predisposition to ensure the survival of those reproductions. Living through the reproductions is something that happens socially on top of that platform; sure, it almost always happens to some degree, but it is a symptom, not a drive (in most cases).
Human beings ARE entitled to privacy, regardless of age. They are not, however, entitled to privacy on the Internet (and will never have it). As for computer privacy in the home, I take the same stance I take in the workplace:
Everything gets logged (not just kids' activities). If something bubbles up in the logs and causes an alert, or some outside incident occurs that requires me to review those logs, I will. Otherwise, I won't. Things WILL go to management (in this case, parental discussion) if they are against policy. Attempts to mess with logs are against policy and will cause a detailed analysis of ALL logs.
I also like to apply the rule "don't do anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to discover ME doing on the internet." That image is usually enough to keep the kids in line;)
We already know from the PC world how easy it is to abuse certificates. My next home movie/ripped TV show/etc will be licensed by either some Chinese manufacturer, or maybe even someone like Sony, via an expired certificate that my player doesn't know has expired.
If they try the PS3 route with all hardware, they might stop this. Good luck getting buy-in from everyone in both the home entertainment and computing industries, though.
...and you want an inefficient algorithm to check the integrity of your disk image why? It's not like someone's going to reverse engineer a 200MB file out of a tiny hash. It's also unlikely that they'll be able to force a collision.
Hashes have many uses; hashing an access key (such as an ascii password string) is only one, and there are hashing algorithms designed for that (the SHA family is not included). For that matter, there are meta-algorithms designed to safely use SHA-style algorithms cryptographically. Faster generation just means more iterations through the meta-algorithm. Time to calculate final hash tends to stay fairly constant.
This is why bed manufacturers manufacture a "different" bed for each retailer. No reason Last.FM couldn't do this too -- have a different subscription service if you want to use the stream on iOS as well as other places, and jack up the price 30%. It's not the same service they offer to others, so Apple can't complain.
Not quite true: Apple will not allow the subscription price paid via the iPad to be more expensive than the same iPad subscription paid via some other medium (such as iPad's web browser).
All they have to do is block the subscriptions from playing on the iPad unless they're "certified iOS subscriptions" that have come either through the App Store, or from the website at an iOS premium price. The subscription for streaming the content to anywhere else can be at whatever price point they want to set.
The end result will be that they may get fewer iOS subscriptions, but that will be offset by the 30% markup they get back from those who DO subscribe, but do it via their website.
I did read the response; nitrogensixteen wasn't responding to that point, he was responding to that point being a way to refute HIS point above, which it was not. I think all four of us agree that both are needed. However, nitrogensixteen and I think that this point clouds the point he was trying to make. Hence why I re-stated what he said, as some people seem not to have understood him the first time.
Something I haven't heard ISPs doing, but which makes some sense to me... Instead of throttling services, why not throttle based on number of ports?
Using this method the first 40 or so ports opened to the gateway will all be at a standard QoS. Ports opened after that will be throttled.
Sure, this means that if you have bt running and then try to play an FPS, it's your FPS's ports that are going to be throttled at first, but after the current round of BT segments complete, the FPS connections will move up the queue, and it'll be the BT traffic throttled.
You could even make separate queues for TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc. That way, your "must have it now" UDP, DNS and ICMP traffic can still get through... unless you're saturating those channels with stealth P2P traffic.
Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.
Could it be possible that at 6 PM the Bittorrent QoS level gets adjusted, and for the rest of the day it's at the same level as http and rtsp? Definitely artificial, but not necessarily nefarious.
I bet that even if you called every hour for weeks, you would always get that message. Seems to me that you can't call something unusual if its always the case.
Actually, they're usually only open from 9 to 5. Outside of these hours, you don't get the "unusually busy" message; you get the "please call back between 9 and 5" message. Since 9 to 5 is only 1/3 of a day, the volume they experience during this period is "unusually busy" compared to when they don't accept calls.
I'm still amazed at how many places do this; it should be extremely easy in this day and age to at least record and sort messages during off-hours instead of saying "please call back during working hours, or call this number if your house has exploded". It would also lower the busy rating during work hours from "unusually" to "significantly".
Slashdot Mirror
As a few others mentioned, it looks like the text was ripped from http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/02/26/mac-os-x-backdoor-trojan-now-in-beta/
...for a free product (no registration required)?
I've been wondering when I'd start actually seeing these crop up here. This is purely to boost the site's google rating. Spam blockers and web filters have been blocking these guys for weeks now. Does Google ignore the content on here rated 0 or below? It should.
OS X: safer.
Windows: more secure.
Stuff that runs on them: a mixed bag.
Just so you know, VirtualBox has full support for OS X Server, and Apple sells OS X Server without hardware (straight license) in a configuration to run in a virtualized environment. The "can't run OS X that way" was from when they still sold blades.
Of course, it's possible they only do these agreements with real enterprises; I haven't seen what they put as conditions on the small volume server licenses.
Here's an idea: why not make English an official language of the United States. English is already the unofficial language used when doing international business, and it is also the language most often used in science.
If Pakistan can have English as their official language then why not the United States?
Because "official languages" are languages used by government, not languages people are forced to use with ER after severe head trauma. "Sorry, you have to communicate only in English" doesn't sound like something someone dedicated to saving lives is going to want to have to say.
However, this system seems to imply that people whose stronger languages aren't English are literate enough in those other languages to comprehend the feedback in not only triage, but a complete medical diagnostic. I find this a bit of wishful thinking. But if the device can actually pull it off, it's price tag is extremely cheap.
I think email clients should be set to not be able to reply to all by default if the recipient isn't in the "To" list. This would fix most headaches caused by BCC.
...and for those arguing that it is, the real difference is that you didn't get THEIR secret, you derived your own formula by analyzing their product. If you discovered that some chemical engineer from Coca Cola had left his chemical composition documentation on the bar when he went home, and you looked at it and reproduced the formula from it, that WOULD be violation of trade secrets (in some places).
I thought "You could even make separate queues for TCP, UDP, ICMP" should cover that -- BT defaults to TCP, so TV and phone, which use UDP, should work just fine. Sure, you can switch BT to using UDP, but anyone doing that is going to know why everything else is choppy -- they're going to assume it's their torrents and throttle them themselves.
There might be some problems with the way UDP ports are opened/closed, however; this style of QoS might only work well via persistent protocols.
It's more difficult online though; you have to teach them that "Mrs. Hill" in that chatroom they like to chat in (who just happens to be their teacher at school) is not necessarily the same "Mrs. Hill" attempting to contact them over MSN Messenger. Similarly, you have to teach your kids not to trust the Internet itself -- for instance, when that chatroom all their friends have signed up for wants their age, phone number, address, name of school, and then wants you to enter all your extra-curricular activities, friends, pictures, etc. and keep your event calendar on there, you might trust all your "friends", but you need to trust your friend's "friends", as well as those running the chatroom, and also need to trust that they take your privacy seriously, and aren't leaking/selling your data to someone else (and aren't attempting to cover it up if it happens accidentally).
THIS level of abstraction is infuriatingly difficult to teach to children (to many adults too -- see how well Facebook is doing).
Also, when you regularly talk to your kids, you find out pretty fast when something's up, because they actively don't tell you about it. This is different than lying about it or hiding it from you; kids are very good at hiding things from their parents. But when you have a safe environment for them to communicate in, they tell you a lot more than just the things they talk about. They'll ask you questions that, put together, tell you a bit about what's going on. If you create an environment for them where they feel safer hiding things from you than just not talking about them, THEN you've failed, and must resort to talking to others about them and using keyloggers, etc. in order to find out who your kid really is. It's almost impossible to take this path and get back to the "take an interest in the kids and talk" kind of lifestyle however.
If your interest was merely to pass on love and support and promote independence, but you weren't interested in creating a variant of a miniature you, you'd choose to adopt.
As someone who considered adopting, let me say that I strongly disagree. Adopting is expensive. Adopting involves a large up-front outlay. Adopting usually means that you're getting a child whose infancy you didn't get to share, and they've already had their core personality formed by someone else (including issues created by parental substance abuse, etc.). If you can get past all these issues, then you'd choose to adopt. If any one of these is an insurmountable hurdle for you, natural childbirth is cheap, easy, and you don't have to pay for it until later (plus, you don't have social services monitoring you to verify that you're raising the kids the way THEY want you to).
There are many reasons for wanting to have children that don't involve the voyeur or "life extension" drives. One, for example, is the puppy/pony drive. People want someone cute to take care of and spend time with. There's also the "personal value" drive -- some people feel like they've already made a mess of their own life, and want the opportunity, not to do it over again, but to do something worthwhile with their own life. These are the people that most often adopt, but sometimes, mostly based on the above hurdles, adoption is too difficult a barrier to entry for them compared to childbirth.
Plus, people have a genetic predisposition to self-reproduce. They also have a predisposition to ensure the survival of those reproductions. Living through the reproductions is something that happens socially on top of that platform; sure, it almost always happens to some degree, but it is a symptom, not a drive (in most cases).
Human beings ARE entitled to privacy, regardless of age. They are not, however, entitled to privacy on the Internet (and will never have it). As for computer privacy in the home, I take the same stance I take in the workplace:
Everything gets logged (not just kids' activities). If something bubbles up in the logs and causes an alert, or some outside incident occurs that requires me to review those logs, I will. Otherwise, I won't. Things WILL go to management (in this case, parental discussion) if they are against policy. Attempts to mess with logs are against policy and will cause a detailed analysis of ALL logs.
I also like to apply the rule "don't do anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to discover ME doing on the internet." That image is usually enough to keep the kids in line ;)
We already know from the PC world how easy it is to abuse certificates. My next home movie/ripped TV show/etc will be licensed by either some Chinese manufacturer, or maybe even someone like Sony, via an expired certificate that my player doesn't know has expired.
If they try the PS3 route with all hardware, they might stop this. Good luck getting buy-in from everyone in both the home entertainment and computing industries, though.
Jesus Christ look at that HUGE hummingbird! Why does it have a muffler? ... DUCK!
No, it's definitely a hummingbird.
badum-ching!
The answer is obvious: make the beak a hypodermic needle. Biological warfare, here we come....
Ever seen hummingbirds fight? They're likely engineering a larger hummingbird that can out-joust the smaller formerly largest hummingbirds.
I've seen too many dead hummingbirds with beak-sized holes through their throats to think otherwise.
...and you want an inefficient algorithm to check the integrity of your disk image why? It's not like someone's going to reverse engineer a 200MB file out of a tiny hash. It's also unlikely that they'll be able to force a collision.
Hashes have many uses; hashing an access key (such as an ascii password string) is only one, and there are hashing algorithms designed for that (the SHA family is not included). For that matter, there are meta-algorithms designed to safely use SHA-style algorithms cryptographically. Faster generation just means more iterations through the meta-algorithm. Time to calculate final hash tends to stay fairly constant.
This is why bed manufacturers manufacture a "different" bed for each retailer. No reason Last.FM couldn't do this too -- have a different subscription service if you want to use the stream on iOS as well as other places, and jack up the price 30%. It's not the same service they offer to others, so Apple can't complain.
Not quite true: Apple will not allow the subscription price paid via the iPad to be more expensive than the same iPad subscription paid via some other medium (such as iPad's web browser).
All they have to do is block the subscriptions from playing on the iPad unless they're "certified iOS subscriptions" that have come either through the App Store, or from the website at an iOS premium price. The subscription for streaming the content to anywhere else can be at whatever price point they want to set.
The end result will be that they may get fewer iOS subscriptions, but that will be offset by the 30% markup they get back from those who DO subscribe, but do it via their website.
I think, based on history, you'll find the answer is Yes.
I did read the response; nitrogensixteen wasn't responding to that point, he was responding to that point being a way to refute HIS point above, which it was not. I think all four of us agree that both are needed. However, nitrogensixteen and I think that this point clouds the point he was trying to make. Hence why I re-stated what he said, as some people seem not to have understood him the first time.
Something I haven't heard ISPs doing, but which makes some sense to me...
Instead of throttling services, why not throttle based on number of ports?
Using this method the first 40 or so ports opened to the gateway will all be at a standard QoS. Ports opened after that will be throttled.
Sure, this means that if you have bt running and then try to play an FPS, it's your FPS's ports that are going to be throttled at first, but after the current round of BT segments complete, the FPS connections will move up the queue, and it'll be the BT traffic throttled.
You could even make separate queues for TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc. That way, your "must have it now" UDP, DNS and ICMP traffic can still get through... unless you're saturating those channels with stealth P2P traffic.
Thoughts?
Depends. You should see an undulating curve as people "log on" over time. If there's a sharp point on the bandwidth curve then it's generally a good indicator that something artificial is happening.
Could it be possible that at 6 PM the Bittorrent QoS level gets adjusted, and for the rest of the day it's at the same level as http and rtsp? Definitely artificial, but not necessarily nefarious.
I bet that even if you called every hour for weeks, you would always get that message. Seems to me that you can't call something unusual if its always the case.
Actually, they're usually only open from 9 to 5. Outside of these hours, you don't get the "unusually busy" message; you get the "please call back between 9 and 5" message. Since 9 to 5 is only 1/3 of a day, the volume they experience during this period is "unusually busy" compared to when they don't accept calls.
I'm still amazed at how many places do this; it should be extremely easy in this day and age to at least record and sort messages during off-hours instead of saying "please call back during working hours, or call this number if your house has exploded". It would also lower the busy rating during work hours from "unusually" to "significantly".