My name is Abu Mkumbu. I am writing to you as the director of the national Kenyan cable and Internet company. I am asking your assistance in the following matter. I was trying to move funds from my great grand fathers estate via electronic transfer, when a ship tore the cable that holds the secure bank line to my swiss bank account. Since I have no more access to my swiss bank account, I need someone trustworthy to assist me in getting these funds (US$14,113.142.78) out of my inflation ridden country. As a Kenyan national, i can not set up a bank account in your country. If you were to help me transfer the money, I will let you keep 10% of the estate as a transfer fee.
Who cares what they're called. How many floppy disks does it take to hold them and under how many Olympic size swimming pools of water are those cables submerged?
Belgians don't have a very good safety record as drivers either.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/43314/E92789.pdf
Shows that the Belgians have twice the number of people dying, compared to their next door neighbor, the Netherlands. Even Germany, with the no-speed-limits Autobahn only has about 60% of the number of casualties. Maybe it's not just about lighting, but also about culture and driver education.
You know, those 100 corrupt senators have to get paid somehow. Corruption can usually be solved by the "follow the money" principle. What if that's what ESR is doing?
Android applications get almost no shielding from the OS and filesystem. security separation is based on UID and file system permissions. Since most apps are seriously lacking in file system permissions (app developers just turn on permissions for everyone, so their app works) and things like immutable files and ACLs aren't used, in practice Android is about as safe as an unpatched Windows ME machine directly connected to the Internet (slightly exaggerated for theatrical purposes). I wouldn't trust my company or private data to Android without some serious frameworks in place, that aren't there now.
Autism, asperger and high IQ are not known to be related. There are at least as people with IQs just as high that do not show any autistic characteristics as there are with them. At least, there is no scientific study that proves absolute correlation. The only reason people seem to think they are, is because Savants are so fascinating to observe.
Just this Monday I had convinced Linkedin to remove all of my contacts I'd given them once a few years ago. Now they can harvest them (again?) with rapportive? I give up, where can I buy a fashionable tin foil hat? I don't mind if my resume is on the Internet, but I do mind if the prime resume pimping company is messing about in my private e-mail. I guess the only way to keep your e-mail account private these days is hosting your own mail server....
By the way, if you want Linkedin to wipe your g-mail contacts that haven't linked with you, send them a request through their help desk. It may take some persuasion, but they will do it.
The appendix dilemma has already been "solved". If you get diarrhea, the appendix is the place where you keep a cache of intestinal fauna so you can digest food again quickly, once the bad stuff has all been flushed out. If you don't have one, you'll be much more likely to suffer from digestive trouble and healing from diseases will take you longer. Until very recently in the western world, and still in very large parts of the 3rd world, having an appendix is an evolutionary beneficial thing, because you'll die from hunger and disease a lot quicker than everyone else competing for the little food there is.
What if you live in a country that has actual privacy laws? What if that country states that an IP address is because of legal obligations of ISPs, always relatable to a natural person or company? What if that country explicitly states an IP address is personal data? What if that country has laws that prohibit companies to harvest private data without explicit permission from the owner?
I'd say that this makes Googles new policy illegal and they have to leave that country and stop providing services or track anyone from that country, or adjust their policy and comply. I wonder what is going to happen once the new policy is in place, because that country exists and people have a tendency to go to court over stuff like this.
I can't really find the technology behind the trick in the paper. It does describe that a Kinect is used. That sounds a lot more plausible as the source for figuring out where to project, in what shape and for detecting object movement as a controller than a plain web cam. Could it be that the WebCam is only used to record contrast and color balance so they can project on "printed" surfaces?
Isn't there something in the constitution that lets American Citizens travel freely within all the ehr... about 50 states? I can see that it may be a problem if the family would be traveling international, since knowingly traveling with a "malfunctioning passport" may be interpreted as a non valid passport. You can have your questions about the validity of denying people to travel internationally just because some inferior piece of technology the government insisted on failed, but if it was a national flight, it's downright unconstitutional.
Medicine never got cheaper just because the tools to practice it lowered in price. People in the supply chain and the doctors either made more profit, or used more and other expensive things added to the cheap technology, because there were now funds for it. Usually both, resulting in a higher bill for the person being treated, or their insurance company.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with co-pay, if there is a chemically identical but cheaper medicine available from a competing manufacturer. If there's a patent on the medication that's subscribed that makes it too expensive, the insurance should just pay for it, or fight the patent. If certain doctors that have no better results than others subscribe more expensive medication, insurance companies usually have ways to deal with them here in the Netherlands, so that shouldn't be an issue.
These plans are great in theory, but in practice, they will never be able to enforce access to all the data they are really after. The terrorists will use intermediates and encryption to make it impossible to yield any practical data out of this ginormous heap of raw information. It will violate privacy, cost an insane amount of money and have no significant positive effect on whatever statistical figure they want to improve upon. A few stupid punters will have their day in court for being so stupid that they get caught for petty crimes, but that's all this enforcement will ever yield. Unless they plan to use it to end file-sharing. Maybe that's the hidden agenda?
In the Netherlands, damages are only that what you have to spend to put the original situation back. If that means reinstalling 3 servers from scratch, I doubt you'd be looking at 200K. However, if you need to do forensics to actually establish that it was just the 3 servers and you need an external company to do that because privacy regulations from the government mandate that, 200K sounds plausible.
If you were never planning on releasing or selling any of the vulnerabilities you found. If you were willing to give them to the person/business you hacked in to, without any compensation, you'd be called an ethical hacker. Mind you, that doesn't make it less illegal to do the hacking. You just won't be guilty of other crimes.
As a business, it makes no sense to have an ethical hacker prosecuted, since they are providing a service for you that would normally cost you a very substantial amount of money. However, not paying people will not help getting people to be "ethical" with you. Getting them prosecuted will not help either, they will just hide their tracks better and simply sell anything they find to the highest bidder, or put it out in the open for anyone to abuse. Groups of people with "poor impulse control" might take offense from a judgement like this and take their frustration out on the company that decided to get the hacker prosecuted.
It's a shame they seized this. It would have been so much more fun to actually have these con guys con other con people with the bonds before arresting them all.
What judge granted the 15 million claim? You can't take down people's businesses just because someone claims they are costing them money in illegal damages. If that's the truly a fact, they could sue in court for the losses. Once the losses were validated by a Judge, they could first ask the losses to be paid. If those weren't paid, they could have the assets of the business confiscated. Maybe *then* you would have a case for taking down the website, but not before.
Google did not do the EULA thing just for private single persons, but they signed actual contracts with business users. Those policies get changed as well, not to the benefit of said business users. Those business users have a much stronger case in court to object to the changes, since there is a clear contract, money at stake and all that.
The biggest underlying change, also for businesses, is that in practice Google now reserve the right to have any bit of data they get on you, no matter how, linked to all the other bits of data on you. This applies to both private and business use, or a combination of both. If you think how much google scrapes and logs, they will probably know more about you than your mother, your best friend and your girl/boyfriend combined. Imagine what could happen to your business or personal life if that data got into the hands of a company that actually knows how to mine raw data.... oh wait....
Just like a doctor has to cure people as best as they can, regardless if they like them, agree with them or find the cause of the injury stupid or self inflicted, lawyers should be able to represent people to the best of their abilities, regardless if they agree with the cause or not. Only if the lawyer, by some moral objection, thinks he/she can not represent the client to the best of their abilities, should they not take the case. Anyone has a right to a fair trail and lawyers should be the people helping make that happen.
True, a lot of lawyers choose not to do so and they do just fine. However, some lawyers find it more interesting, or more rewarding, financially or not, to just represent anything or anyone, regardless of their standpoint on moral issues. In your reasoning, defense lawyers in death penalty cases that were once public prosecutors in the same type of cases, can not be good defense lawyers, since they switched sides. In practice this happens a lot. Also, private lawyers turn judge later on in their careers, same reasoning applies.
In my opinion, which is shared with a lot of people in the legal field, you should be able to serve justice over serving your own moral view points on the matter at hand. Anyone is allowed to be represented to the fullest extent of the law. A good lawyer can and will do so, regardless of the case at hand.
What surface the carbon laminate dries as is not relevant. They put special radar-absorbing paint on top of the laminate. Also, the surface anomalies of the resin are too unpredictable to work reliably to absorb radar. The rest of the low radar profile is because the chance that an large surface is actually reflecting radar beams back exactly at the radar station is minimal if you make the surfaces as flat as possible, hence the sharp edges and "flat" surfaces of stealth design. The paint is actually not that wear resistant and hard to clean, compared to "regular" airplane paints.
I don't see how dressing up a male plane to look female would help keep it's paint protected from the dust, unless you completely cover it up in pantyhose and make-up.
Slashdot Mirror
My name is Abu Mkumbu. I am writing to you as the director of the national Kenyan cable and Internet company. I am asking your assistance in the following matter. I was trying to move funds from my great grand fathers estate via electronic transfer, when a ship tore the cable that holds the secure bank line to my swiss bank account. Since I have no more access to my swiss bank account, I need someone trustworthy to assist me in getting these funds (US$14,113.142.78) out of my inflation ridden country. As a Kenyan national, i can not set up a bank account in your country. If you were to help me transfer the money, I will let you keep 10% of the estate as a transfer fee.
Who cares what they're called. How many floppy disks does it take to hold them and under how many Olympic size swimming pools of water are those cables submerged?
Belgians don't have a very good safety record as drivers either. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/43314/E92789.pdf Shows that the Belgians have twice the number of people dying, compared to their next door neighbor, the Netherlands. Even Germany, with the no-speed-limits Autobahn only has about 60% of the number of casualties. Maybe it's not just about lighting, but also about culture and driver education.
You know, those 100 corrupt senators have to get paid somehow. Corruption can usually be solved by the "follow the money" principle. What if that's what ESR is doing?
Android applications get almost no shielding from the OS and filesystem. security separation is based on UID and file system permissions. Since most apps are seriously lacking in file system permissions (app developers just turn on permissions for everyone, so their app works) and things like immutable files and ACLs aren't used, in practice Android is about as safe as an unpatched Windows ME machine directly connected to the Internet (slightly exaggerated for theatrical purposes). I wouldn't trust my company or private data to Android without some serious frameworks in place, that aren't there now.
Autism, asperger and high IQ are not known to be related. There are at least as people with IQs just as high that do not show any autistic characteristics as there are with them. At least, there is no scientific study that proves absolute correlation. The only reason people seem to think they are, is because Savants are so fascinating to observe.
Just this Monday I had convinced Linkedin to remove all of my contacts I'd given them once a few years ago. Now they can harvest them (again?) with rapportive? I give up, where can I buy a fashionable tin foil hat? I don't mind if my resume is on the Internet, but I do mind if the prime resume pimping company is messing about in my private e-mail. I guess the only way to keep your e-mail account private these days is hosting your own mail server....
By the way, if you want Linkedin to wipe your g-mail contacts that haven't linked with you, send them a request through their help desk. It may take some persuasion, but they will do it.
Your friends must have no careers? It's hard to do networking and getting jobs without being on linkedin these days.
The appendix dilemma has already been "solved". If you get diarrhea, the appendix is the place where you keep a cache of intestinal fauna so you can digest food again quickly, once the bad stuff has all been flushed out. If you don't have one, you'll be much more likely to suffer from digestive trouble and healing from diseases will take you longer. Until very recently in the western world, and still in very large parts of the 3rd world, having an appendix is an evolutionary beneficial thing, because you'll die from hunger and disease a lot quicker than everyone else competing for the little food there is.
What if you live in a country that has actual privacy laws? What if that country states that an IP address is because of legal obligations of ISPs, always relatable to a natural person or company? What if that country explicitly states an IP address is personal data? What if that country has laws that prohibit companies to harvest private data without explicit permission from the owner?
I'd say that this makes Googles new policy illegal and they have to leave that country and stop providing services or track anyone from that country, or adjust their policy and comply. I wonder what is going to happen once the new policy is in place, because that country exists and people have a tendency to go to court over stuff like this.
Do you know what would be even greater? If public transport would actually run on schedule.
I can't really find the technology behind the trick in the paper. It does describe that a Kinect is used. That sounds a lot more plausible as the source for figuring out where to project, in what shape and for detecting object movement as a controller than a plain web cam. Could it be that the WebCam is only used to record contrast and color balance so they can project on "printed" surfaces?
Stand on one leg with your feet in the air the whole presentation? You'll only be able to switch slides by tapping your nose if you do that.
Isn't there something in the constitution that lets American Citizens travel freely within all the ehr... about 50 states? I can see that it may be a problem if the family would be traveling international, since knowingly traveling with a "malfunctioning passport" may be interpreted as a non valid passport. You can have your questions about the validity of denying people to travel internationally just because some inferior piece of technology the government insisted on failed, but if it was a national flight, it's downright unconstitutional.
Why wasn't that on Slashdot?
Medicine never got cheaper just because the tools to practice it lowered in price. People in the supply chain and the doctors either made more profit, or used more and other expensive things added to the cheap technology, because there were now funds for it. Usually both, resulting in a higher bill for the person being treated, or their insurance company. By the way, there's nothing wrong with co-pay, if there is a chemically identical but cheaper medicine available from a competing manufacturer. If there's a patent on the medication that's subscribed that makes it too expensive, the insurance should just pay for it, or fight the patent. If certain doctors that have no better results than others subscribe more expensive medication, insurance companies usually have ways to deal with them here in the Netherlands, so that shouldn't be an issue.
These plans are great in theory, but in practice, they will never be able to enforce access to all the data they are really after. The terrorists will use intermediates and encryption to make it impossible to yield any practical data out of this ginormous heap of raw information. It will violate privacy, cost an insane amount of money and have no significant positive effect on whatever statistical figure they want to improve upon. A few stupid punters will have their day in court for being so stupid that they get caught for petty crimes, but that's all this enforcement will ever yield. Unless they plan to use it to end file-sharing. Maybe that's the hidden agenda?
In the Netherlands, damages are only that what you have to spend to put the original situation back. If that means reinstalling 3 servers from scratch, I doubt you'd be looking at 200K. However, if you need to do forensics to actually establish that it was just the 3 servers and you need an external company to do that because privacy regulations from the government mandate that, 200K sounds plausible.
If you were never planning on releasing or selling any of the vulnerabilities you found. If you were willing to give them to the person/business you hacked in to, without any compensation, you'd be called an ethical hacker. Mind you, that doesn't make it less illegal to do the hacking. You just won't be guilty of other crimes.
As a business, it makes no sense to have an ethical hacker prosecuted, since they are providing a service for you that would normally cost you a very substantial amount of money. However, not paying people will not help getting people to be "ethical" with you. Getting them prosecuted will not help either, they will just hide their tracks better and simply sell anything they find to the highest bidder, or put it out in the open for anyone to abuse. Groups of people with "poor impulse control" might take offense from a judgement like this and take their frustration out on the company that decided to get the hacker prosecuted.
It's a shame they seized this. It would have been so much more fun to actually have these con guys con other con people with the bonds before arresting them all.
What judge granted the 15 million claim? You can't take down people's businesses just because someone claims they are costing them money in illegal damages. If that's the truly a fact, they could sue in court for the losses. Once the losses were validated by a Judge, they could first ask the losses to be paid. If those weren't paid, they could have the assets of the business confiscated. Maybe *then* you would have a case for taking down the website, but not before.
Google did not do the EULA thing just for private single persons, but they signed actual contracts with business users. Those policies get changed as well, not to the benefit of said business users. Those business users have a much stronger case in court to object to the changes, since there is a clear contract, money at stake and all that.
The biggest underlying change, also for businesses, is that in practice Google now reserve the right to have any bit of data they get on you, no matter how, linked to all the other bits of data on you. This applies to both private and business use, or a combination of both. If you think how much google scrapes and logs, they will probably know more about you than your mother, your best friend and your girl/boyfriend combined. Imagine what could happen to your business or personal life if that data got into the hands of a company that actually knows how to mine raw data.... oh wait....
Just like a doctor has to cure people as best as they can, regardless if they like them, agree with them or find the cause of the injury stupid or self inflicted, lawyers should be able to represent people to the best of their abilities, regardless if they agree with the cause or not. Only if the lawyer, by some moral objection, thinks he/she can not represent the client to the best of their abilities, should they not take the case. Anyone has a right to a fair trail and lawyers should be the people helping make that happen.
True, a lot of lawyers choose not to do so and they do just fine. However, some lawyers find it more interesting, or more rewarding, financially or not, to just represent anything or anyone, regardless of their standpoint on moral issues. In your reasoning, defense lawyers in death penalty cases that were once public prosecutors in the same type of cases, can not be good defense lawyers, since they switched sides. In practice this happens a lot. Also, private lawyers turn judge later on in their careers, same reasoning applies.
In my opinion, which is shared with a lot of people in the legal field, you should be able to serve justice over serving your own moral view points on the matter at hand. Anyone is allowed to be represented to the fullest extent of the law. A good lawyer can and will do so, regardless of the case at hand.
When can I paint my car with scorpion paint? I don't want it to wear a bra in public.
What surface the carbon laminate dries as is not relevant. They put special radar-absorbing paint on top of the laminate. Also, the surface anomalies of the resin are too unpredictable to work reliably to absorb radar. The rest of the low radar profile is because the chance that an large surface is actually reflecting radar beams back exactly at the radar station is minimal if you make the surfaces as flat as possible, hence the sharp edges and "flat" surfaces of stealth design. The paint is actually not that wear resistant and hard to clean, compared to "regular" airplane paints.
I don't see how dressing up a male plane to look female would help keep it's paint protected from the dust, unless you completely cover it up in pantyhose and make-up.