Why wouldn't it be legal? After all, it is about 1000 times better than folks living on the factory farms have it where it is 12 hours of work for a handful of rice.
The rural folks in China have it really, really bad and they are even more motivated to move to the city than the folks in Mexico are to come to the US. After all, in Mexico you might get $2 for a day's work and have your own shack. People are quite willing to cross the desert with signs that pretty much say "If you continue you will die" because they can make $50 a day and feed their entire family on one person's wages.
In China a little thing like suicide isn't going to deter them in the slightest. I suspect as long as they aren't hit by falling bodies they are perfectly OK with a 1% chance they might really want to commit suicide if they take a crappy job.
I refer to "Destination Moon" a 1950s movie about the first moon launch. The launch is called off because the equivalent to the EPA at the time says that their rocket can't be allowed to launch because it uses dangerous chemicals and poses a hazard. Of course with a rousing entrepreneurial spirit, the launch is done anyway in spite of the regulators that show up to shut them down.
As far as I know, the EPA does in fact have to license launches because of the hazardous materials involved. This can certainly have a severe impact on the exploitation of space and the ability to launch anything.
Many people today feel the government doesn't regulate enough and that agencies like the FAA are simply boosters for aviation first and regulators a distant fifth or sixth. Absolutely, I would say that a "regulation first" agency being in charge of spaceflight would insure that nothing gets launched from the US. Fortunately, China is going to be right there ignoring all sorts of environmental regulations that we would like to force on them.
I would think it would make a lot more sense to launch from Mexico. Suitably lax regulation should be able to be purchased from the Mexican government. I think I would go for an extraterritorial compound that is not subject to any of the laws of Mexico. That shouldn't be too hard to get for a few hundred million or so. Mexico is pretty hard up for cash.
You almost certainly sign something at a bank that says they are making a "best effort" and are not liable beyond that.
You are going to see things like this on web sites if any action succeeds against Sony. Just like with software (don't use this for critical life support functions, we're not liable for anything other than the purchase price, etc.), you will see disclaimers and agreements that have to be acknowledged in order to place an order somewhere.
So far, I don't believe anyone has ever had any liability for information in their keeping. And as long as it stays that way everything is fine. But there is no such thing as "enough security" except an air gap, so if Sony (or anyone for that matter) ends up with a serious liability because of a security exposure you can bet there will be no further exposures. Ever.
That would put a serious dent in online retail if the first thing you had to do was check of an acknowledgement that the seller wasn't liable for anything.
The problem of course is that credit card fraud isn't really a crime anywhere. It isn't prosecuted in the US except in utterly outrageous cases. Someone might get nailed because of breaking into a computer system but not because of credit card fraud.
In a climate like that anyone that knowingly carries personal data of another person's is simply a fool.
You cannot possibly know about all of the ways that data can be compromised. Similarly, at my doctor's office the doctors themselves use wireless laptops to update patient information and send out prescriptions. This is of course stupid because there is utterly no security through something like this. I'm sure the connection is not through a VPN or SSL because wireless is encrypted, right? Except today most professionals know that wireless encryption is easily broken. Fortunately for the doctors, there is no assumption of risk like that in the US.
There is no such thing as "enough" security measures. Hardwired networks inside a secure facility is a beginning, but the first person that installs GoToMyPC or something like that has just opened the door to unlimited access. Fortunately, credit card numbers aren't worth all that much or we would be seeing physical break-ins to get them. But anyone that believes the state of computer security allows someone to say they have "enough security measures in place" is an idiot.
There simply is no such thing when you are faced with a determined person or group of people. The security is going to be defeated.
Verizon uses CDMA. Their frequencies are pretty much unique to Verizon, so a Verizon-branded phone isn't going to work on anything else today. Sprint and T-Mobile both use GSM but they use different frequencies. AT&T is yet a different beast and I don't know what their compatibility might be.
Anyone else out there is just reselling tower access to one of these carriers, such as Boost or Virgin Mobile.
This is only going to get worse as the frequencies change and carriers consolidate.
Yes, but there was a minor change to credit card processing around 2006. One effect of this is that terminating a credit card does not have any affect on subscription billing.
In other words, you can cancel the card or let it expire and all subscription billing arrangements in effect will continue. You will continue to get billed for these. You can't cancel them except by getting the holder of the subscription billing arrangement to cancel it.
Why do you think there are so many things that you can just pay shipping and handling to get now? The subscribe you to a service and then make it extremely difficult to cancel. And since 2006 it is now perfectly legal. And there isn't anything you can do about it.
You have to understand that in the US the progression is pretty much that you get some credit cards when you are in school, you max them out and default. Maybe declare bankruptcy. Get some burger-flipping job and find a way to qualify for food stamps. Learn how to buy beer and lottery tickets with food stamps. Get on a waiting list for Section 8 housing. Wait for government support.
In the end, you get Medicaid (government support), subsidized housing (government support), food stamps (government support) and other free stuff. You won't be a burden on your offspring because once again, you will be on government support when you retire.
The unemployment situation in the US makes this even more apparent. We have 8 million people that were recently working who are not and will never have a job again because the economy changed. The government will end up supporting them as well.
We have embarked down a road where no matter what level of finacial responsibility you might have, it will work out better if you spend every dime on beer, DVDs, games and lottery tickets. Because the government is going to support the people that do this.
If you are more responsible maybe you won't need the government support. You might have some more dignity, but your neighbors will be better off.
The problem with that thinking is that when the US Dollar goes down, so will every other currency that is linked to it. There is no "safe" currency that is traded or even reasonably accessible.
I guess you might be OK if you put your money into Mongolian tugriks. Maybe, but I don't know how you might do that. And there is no assurance that Mongolia doesn't have closer ties to the US financial system than most people believe. I can't believe any currency that is tied any closer is going to survive without a lot of damage.
Part of me would really like to see a court ruling that says "It happened on the Internet and everyone knows it could have been anyone." A ruling that would reinforce the idea that a lot of people have that the Internet is a consequences-free zone. You can do anything and get away with it because nobody knows exactly who you are. Holding some random account holder for the Internet connection responsible might be fair, but it isn't being done.
So then piracy becomes a non-issue for real. The fact that only a very, very few people involved in piracy are ever prosecuted tends to make people think the odds are in their favor, and for the most part, they are. So is downloading kiddy porn - if you don't show it to your friends, neighbors or sex partners nobody will ever know about it. So nothing is going to happen to you.
On the other hand, there is a small step from downloading movies and music for free to starting up some phishing operation to get a few more dollars in the old wallet. If you can't be prosecuted for file sharing then how can you be prosecuted for stealing on the Internet? So why not?
Chasing down the account holder by IP address makes great deal of sense. Then you grab computers and find out which one has the pirated materials on them and that leads to more troubles for the computer user/owner. Saying you can't start with an IP address means you can't start and that just means that phishing and every other sort of activity on the Internet is perfectly legal... because all you have is an IP address.
Today the assumption is pretty much EVERYONE is armed and dangerous.
Every day the police go to some random house where they are there for some non-violent reason and are met with either utter insanity or gunfire.
When you walk up to the front door of a meth user you will discover a couple of things. The first is that if you aren't in the "meth scene" then you must be a narc. And you probably want to listen to their understanding of how the world works. You will notice that they seem a little... well, nervous. And they are generally pretty paranoid, to the point of "knowing" the whole world is out to get them. A cop at the front door just confirms that belief and can lead to some pretty suicidal impulses. Aside from being a little on edge and having some bizarre theories the second thing is that a meth user is often a collector of stuff. Firearms. Ammo. Explosives. Fireworks. Just about anything, with extra points if it is dangerous to have around.
The other sort of people that don't like visitors much are the folks engaged in meth production. They know the cops are there to arrest them and kill them. Sometimes in that order, sometimes the other way around. Doesn't matter - the only logical response (in their minds) is to kill anyone that comes to the door that might be a cop. You hear all sorts of stories about cops knocking on doors because of loud music or awful smells coming from a house and being nearly killed.
Short answer is today just about any interaction with the police will involve them taking absolute control of the situation from the beginning and making sure there is nobody walking around that might be able to grab a gun and start shooting. This includes traffic stops where around 50 or so officers are killed each year, usually for doing something they have been trained not to do, like getting distracted from the people in the car.
The "Seal Mark XII UPS" is also known as a Hotplug from a company originally known as WiebeTech. I guess it is still marketed under that name.
It is a handy little device for moving computers around without losing power. Nothing real fancy here, just your stock computer forensic seizure device.
Is Truecrypt susceptable to a Rainbow Tables attack?
OK, let's say it takes a month to build the tables on 20TB of drive space. So what? The result would be cracking it in a few days after that.
There may also be other files on the computer that might help with cracking the password, like a paging file. Truecrypt suffers from the problem of holding the key in memory during use of the encrypted volume. So, if you can find it in memory you have the key. The paging file and any full memory dumps are going to be helpful in this mission.
The fact is that around 90% of murders that can be called "a crime of passion" involve a spouse. That rule guides the police and prosecutors.
They don't need to "prove" he killed her, all they need to do is build a circumstantial case that says he could have and he is the most likely to have. The prosecutor then needs to make sure that nobody else shows up that could be equally guilty. End of trial, and the guy gets convicted. Why? Don't they have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it? No, what they really have to do is show that there are no "reasonable doubts" about his guilt. Which pretty much comes down to (a) nobody else handy to pin it on and (b) nothing that says clearly he didn't do it. That is the content of a "circumstantial case" and it is how people get convicted all the time.
I believe it is how Scott Peterson got convicted and once in prison he offered to talk about how he did it.
There is no getting away from the fact that it is most often the spouse.
The problem with most of these cases is the guy thinks he is sooo very much smarter than the police and prosecutor. So he gets a little cocky and mouths off to the wrong people. Or, decides that he knows how to manage his defense better than his lawyer, who just goes along with his cocky arrogant client.
First rule of crime is you are never smarter than the police, just luckier. They have rotten luck and the odds are usually against them. Which can be countered quickly by the prosecutor that is on top of the game.
This guy's biggest problem will be his ego. Second problem is while everyone is thinking he is going to go free, the prosecutor pops up with "the real theory" which doesn't need the router and explains the phone call away.
99% of the time the only person that can get really annoyed with someone enough to kill them is the person they are married to. The police and prosecutors know this and it makes their job a lot simpler. So, did this guy do it? Probably. Will the prosecutor's case fail without the router? Probably not. These lawyers are really good at coming up with stuff that isn't all that technical, whereas the techy types continually fall back on relying on technology and ignore basic facts apart from the technology.
Don't be suprised when a witness comes forth that saw the guy driving off after putting a really big, heavy box in his car.
Their definition is always going to be that the bandwidth you are using is whatever they are measuring which is subject to change at any time without notice.
Anything else would just put them in a position where they say you transferred 1,735,287,513 bytes and you think you only transferred 1,735,287,512 and you (and your lawyer) want see what their measurements are based on. And of course, your lawyer gets a court to order them to come in an testify on how these measurements are being made and what the differences are between what you are measuring and what they are.
No. Sorry, nobody is going to get into that. It is very simple - they have an undisclosed and unspecified measurement technique that you, as their customer, accept. Anything else today ends up with endless lawsuits.
Why would they measure anything except bytes? Because it is easier, or because they have equipment that does so. Also, "bandwidth" is really a measurement of time these days. Do you believe the collection of routers and gateways between your home/office and the Internet backbone you are connected to use up more time in latency than the actual transfer of bytes on the Internet backbone? You better believe it. So really no matter how many bytes are being transferred in a packet, the packet itself is going to take the same amount of time to transfer - which ties up the equipment the same.
But what might an ISP really count? It could be transactions between the node and a DOCSIS modem. This isn't a TCP/IP connection so the packets aren't the same at all. They could count transactions between their node and the head end, whatever that might be. All of these things are "bandwidth" to a cable ISP and they might be more important than TCP/IP packets to the backbone, at least to the ISP.
I have had router problems for years with the standard OEM software. The last router that got replaced was a Dlink N (single band) one that was around $100. I decided to pop for the latest Dlink ???400 dual-band N router but I knew the prior one failed because of heat. The router is in a 2nd floor loft area which gets quite warm in the summer and the AC thermostat is on the 1st floor.
So, I made a little stand with a fan blowing up. The fan was salvaged from a computer with a noisy bearing. Being a 12-volt fan but being run on a 9-volt supply it spins a little slower but is utterly silent. The router is sitting on top of the fan and airflow isn't a problem anymore. The router stays nice and cool and hasn't failed in over six months of operation.
These things are designed to have convection cooling but none of them seem to have anywhere near what is sufficient. And putting them into an environment where the room air is above 80F is just asking for lots of failures.
TomTom is actually a vendor that could be replaced pretty easily. From what I understand, they really don't do much to the raw data that the get from either their own map source data or other vendors that they incorporate into their units.
Garmin, on the other hand, does considerable tailoring of the data to the GPS device and the GPS application. You can easily spot the difference with any unit when comparing to a Garmin. If it tells you frequently to "keep left" or "stay on the road" then it is using pretty raw data. Having worked for the company that is now Navteq it is fairly easy to spot occurrances in the data that need to be smoothed out but most systems aren't doing. Garmin does and it greatly improves the usability of their systems.
TomTom as well as most of the built-in systems are junk compared to a Garmin. I have a BMW with navigation and while it will eventually get you where you are going, it doesn't do a great job. My wife has an Enclave with navigation that is awful with plenty of "stay on the road" messages. We stick the Garmin up and use it in preference to either built-in system. Most Garmins can also accept red-light and speed camera data from other sources.
Your ISP is likely not counting bytes that transfer through a connection to your modem. They are probably using a number of interesting tricks instead, probably mostly because whatever they bought into does something different. At a minimum counting packets and saying they are all MTU-sized would give different results and would eliminate the overhead of counting bytes.
If you are really, really nice about it, they might tell you what they are really measuring. But they probably will not. Even if you have a bandwidth cap in place, they probably aren't going give you detailed information about what they are measuring and how they are measuring it. Mostly, this would be for fear that you will use that information to figure out some way to circumvent it. In this case information certainly equals power - they have it and do not want you to have it.
So, while your router can count bytes with the right software, it probably isn't going to match up with what they say you are using, assuming they report it to you. My guess is your number will be lower, but it could go either way. In any event, the only number that means anything in your relationship with your ISP is their number. You will not be able to convince them that your number is "right" or "more correct" than their number.
Unless you need a number for your own management purposes - like finding out your neighbor creating 45% of the traffic on your connection - I'd say this is a pointless exercise.
Was just there and I saw the signs. But, pulling pool towels never caused anyone to scan them, so the signage is just there to scare people. Nor were they really "checked in".
I think someone else is doing it for real.
I suppose it might be possible that they are scanning for them at the exits so if you walk out with 30 towels in your suitcase they can stop you.
If I could get anything "solar" that would have a six-year payback I'd do it. Unfortunately, here in Arizona (plenty of sun!!) it looks like the best that can be done is 15-20 year payback with a cost of around $30K. That is absurd from my point of view. The house probably will not even exist in 20 years. The lifespan of the developments that were built around 2005 or so are going to be very, very limited and they might as well just plow everything back into farmland. Nobody's house is worth more than about 75% of the mortgage which means they pretty much can't be sold for another 25 years or so.
When the neighbors start leaving and abandoning their houses I'm probably going to go as well.
So putting up something with a 20 year payback is silly. Oh, and that is with the electric company and tax rebates paying half of the cost.
The problem is that the FBI is lumping in credit card fraud with identity theft which makes it seem like a very large problem. Only thing is, credit card fraud isn't prosecuted. Some guy buys 50 credit card numbers and tries them one at a time to sign up for World of Warcraft - this happened to me. What happens is simple - I got a new credit card, his subscription got cancelled and that was the end of it. Period. No prosecution.
I had a credit card stolen by someone. They sent it to a relative who used in at a KMart store. We know the thief and knew it was her brother that used the card. The police could do nothing because the credit card companies refuse to prosecute.
Credit card fraud is not treated as a crime, so forget about it. It is at most an annoyance.
Real identity theft, where someone gets a new car loan in your name, is incredibly rare. But what everyone hears about are the FBI identity theft statistics which include credit card fraud. Only problem is, there are no prosecutions.
The guy that ripped off millions of credit card numbers from Sony might have a problem. Sony might want to prosecute, but it is unlikely to go anywhere. Want to know how hard it is to get a conviction in Russia with a Russian jury when the prosecution is for a US or Japanese company? Think about if it is Romania or Bulgaria. No, the only way anyone goes down for Sony is if Sony's own private army goes in an kidnaps them. I'll bet Sony has a room somewhere done up with all the gadgets they used to use for captured Chinese prisoners in the 1600s.
I'll bet Sony could recoup all their losses just by selling pictures of that guy's last couple of hours.
Well, there are hebephiles and pedophiles. What you are describing is hebephilia - teens. Pedophila is more oriented in the 2-10 age range.
I'm sorry, but I completely understand hebephilia. I do not get anyone that gets off on pictures of 3 year old little boys. I try to be open minded about a lot of things but I just don't get it with very small children as sex objects.
Credit card fraud isn't a crime. It is an annoyance but only very, very few people are prosecuted. The credit card companies refuse to prosecute in most cases and without their assistance there is nothing law enforcement can do.
Why do you think you can sell a collection of 100 skimmed card numbers for $50? Because nobody is going to jail over it, ever. How do you think underpaid waiters in restaurants are making ends meet, anyway?
If you are a merchant, you better have insurance for credit card fraud because the credit card companies push it all back on the merchants. The card companies lose nothing. And if you have insurance then you don't care either. Hence it is really a crime anymore.
Right. The whole RIM-UAE thing is concerning BIS-connected phones only. BES, which is what anyone with their own server is using, is completely different. With BES (yes even the free BES Express) the key is generated on the BES server that you own. The key isn't available to RIM and therefore whatever RIM has to do with the traffic with BES (unclear if they have anything at all to do with it), they can't see the content.
BIS, on the other hand, is completely in the hands of both the cell phone carrier and RIM. It involves polling of the email servers and whatever security there might be isn't too terribly hard to get around. Remember, your cell phone carrier is polling your email, pulling it down and sending it to the phone. If the traffic to the phone is encrypted, well la-de-da, the email is in plain text on the carrier's server.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't it be legal? After all, it is about 1000 times better than folks living on the factory farms have it where it is 12 hours of work for a handful of rice.
The rural folks in China have it really, really bad and they are even more motivated to move to the city than the folks in Mexico are to come to the US. After all, in Mexico you might get $2 for a day's work and have your own shack. People are quite willing to cross the desert with signs that pretty much say "If you continue you will die" because they can make $50 a day and feed their entire family on one person's wages.
In China a little thing like suicide isn't going to deter them in the slightest. I suspect as long as they aren't hit by falling bodies they are perfectly OK with a 1% chance they might really want to commit suicide if they take a crappy job.
I refer to "Destination Moon" a 1950s movie about the first moon launch. The launch is called off because the equivalent to the EPA at the time says that their rocket can't be allowed to launch because it uses dangerous chemicals and poses a hazard. Of course with a rousing entrepreneurial spirit, the launch is done anyway in spite of the regulators that show up to shut them down.
As far as I know, the EPA does in fact have to license launches because of the hazardous materials involved. This can certainly have a severe impact on the exploitation of space and the ability to launch anything.
Many people today feel the government doesn't regulate enough and that agencies like the FAA are simply boosters for aviation first and regulators a distant fifth or sixth. Absolutely, I would say that a "regulation first" agency being in charge of spaceflight would insure that nothing gets launched from the US. Fortunately, China is going to be right there ignoring all sorts of environmental regulations that we would like to force on them.
I would think it would make a lot more sense to launch from Mexico. Suitably lax regulation should be able to be purchased from the Mexican government. I think I would go for an extraterritorial compound that is not subject to any of the laws of Mexico. That shouldn't be too hard to get for a few hundred million or so. Mexico is pretty hard up for cash.
You almost certainly sign something at a bank that says they are making a "best effort" and are not liable beyond that.
You are going to see things like this on web sites if any action succeeds against Sony. Just like with software (don't use this for critical life support functions, we're not liable for anything other than the purchase price, etc.), you will see disclaimers and agreements that have to be acknowledged in order to place an order somewhere.
So far, I don't believe anyone has ever had any liability for information in their keeping. And as long as it stays that way everything is fine. But there is no such thing as "enough security" except an air gap, so if Sony (or anyone for that matter) ends up with a serious liability because of a security exposure you can bet there will be no further exposures. Ever.
That would put a serious dent in online retail if the first thing you had to do was check of an acknowledgement that the seller wasn't liable for anything.
The problem of course is that credit card fraud isn't really a crime anywhere. It isn't prosecuted in the US except in utterly outrageous cases. Someone might get nailed because of breaking into a computer system but not because of credit card fraud.
In a climate like that anyone that knowingly carries personal data of another person's is simply a fool.
You cannot possibly know about all of the ways that data can be compromised. Similarly, at my doctor's office the doctors themselves use wireless laptops to update patient information and send out prescriptions. This is of course stupid because there is utterly no security through something like this. I'm sure the connection is not through a VPN or SSL because wireless is encrypted, right? Except today most professionals know that wireless encryption is easily broken. Fortunately for the doctors, there is no assumption of risk like that in the US.
There is no such thing as "enough" security measures. Hardwired networks inside a secure facility is a beginning, but the first person that installs GoToMyPC or something like that has just opened the door to unlimited access. Fortunately, credit card numbers aren't worth all that much or we would be seeing physical break-ins to get them. But anyone that believes the state of computer security allows someone to say they have "enough security measures in place" is an idiot.
There simply is no such thing when you are faced with a determined person or group of people. The security is going to be defeated.
Verizon uses CDMA. Their frequencies are pretty much unique to Verizon, so a Verizon-branded phone isn't going to work on anything else today. Sprint and T-Mobile both use GSM but they use different frequencies. AT&T is yet a different beast and I don't know what their compatibility might be.
Anyone else out there is just reselling tower access to one of these carriers, such as Boost or Virgin Mobile.
This is only going to get worse as the frequencies change and carriers consolidate.
I suggest you try that with a phone that was purchased for Sprint (GSM) and move to Verizon (CDMA).
Yes, but there was a minor change to credit card processing around 2006. One effect of this is that terminating a credit card does not have any affect on subscription billing.
In other words, you can cancel the card or let it expire and all subscription billing arrangements in effect will continue. You will continue to get billed for these. You can't cancel them except by getting the holder of the subscription billing arrangement to cancel it.
Why do you think there are so many things that you can just pay shipping and handling to get now? The subscribe you to a service and then make it extremely difficult to cancel. And since 2006 it is now perfectly legal. And there isn't anything you can do about it.
You have to understand that in the US the progression is pretty much that you get some credit cards when you are in school, you max them out and default. Maybe declare bankruptcy. Get some burger-flipping job and find a way to qualify for food stamps. Learn how to buy beer and lottery tickets with food stamps. Get on a waiting list for Section 8 housing. Wait for government support.
In the end, you get Medicaid (government support), subsidized housing (government support), food stamps (government support) and other free stuff. You won't be a burden on your offspring because once again, you will be on government support when you retire.
The unemployment situation in the US makes this even more apparent. We have 8 million people that were recently working who are not and will never have a job again because the economy changed. The government will end up supporting them as well.
We have embarked down a road where no matter what level of finacial responsibility you might have, it will work out better if you spend every dime on beer, DVDs, games and lottery tickets. Because the government is going to support the people that do this.
If you are more responsible maybe you won't need the government support. You might have some more dignity, but your neighbors will be better off.
The problem with that thinking is that when the US Dollar goes down, so will every other currency that is linked to it. There is no "safe" currency that is traded or even reasonably accessible.
I guess you might be OK if you put your money into Mongolian tugriks. Maybe, but I don't know how you might do that. And there is no assurance that Mongolia doesn't have closer ties to the US financial system than most people believe. I can't believe any currency that is tied any closer is going to survive without a lot of damage.
Why would you want anyone to be responsible?
Part of me would really like to see a court ruling that says "It happened on the Internet and everyone knows it could have been anyone." A ruling that would reinforce the idea that a lot of people have that the Internet is a consequences-free zone. You can do anything and get away with it because nobody knows exactly who you are. Holding some random account holder for the Internet connection responsible might be fair, but it isn't being done.
So then piracy becomes a non-issue for real. The fact that only a very, very few people involved in piracy are ever prosecuted tends to make people think the odds are in their favor, and for the most part, they are. So is downloading kiddy porn - if you don't show it to your friends, neighbors or sex partners nobody will ever know about it. So nothing is going to happen to you.
On the other hand, there is a small step from downloading movies and music for free to starting up some phishing operation to get a few more dollars in the old wallet. If you can't be prosecuted for file sharing then how can you be prosecuted for stealing on the Internet? So why not?
Chasing down the account holder by IP address makes great deal of sense. Then you grab computers and find out which one has the pirated materials on them and that leads to more troubles for the computer user/owner. Saying you can't start with an IP address means you can't start and that just means that phishing and every other sort of activity on the Internet is perfectly legal... because all you have is an IP address.
Today the assumption is pretty much EVERYONE is armed and dangerous.
Every day the police go to some random house where they are there for some non-violent reason and are met with either utter insanity or gunfire.
When you walk up to the front door of a meth user you will discover a couple of things. The first is that if you aren't in the "meth scene" then you must be a narc. And you probably want to listen to their understanding of how the world works. You will notice that they seem a little ... well, nervous. And they are generally pretty paranoid, to the point of "knowing" the whole world is out to get them. A cop at the front door just confirms that belief and can lead to some pretty suicidal impulses. Aside from being a little on edge and having some bizarre theories the second thing is that a meth user is often a collector of stuff. Firearms. Ammo. Explosives. Fireworks. Just about anything, with extra points if it is dangerous to have around.
The other sort of people that don't like visitors much are the folks engaged in meth production. They know the cops are there to arrest them and kill them. Sometimes in that order, sometimes the other way around. Doesn't matter - the only logical response (in their minds) is to kill anyone that comes to the door that might be a cop. You hear all sorts of stories about cops knocking on doors because of loud music or awful smells coming from a house and being nearly killed.
Short answer is today just about any interaction with the police will involve them taking absolute control of the situation from the beginning and making sure there is nobody walking around that might be able to grab a gun and start shooting. This includes traffic stops where around 50 or so officers are killed each year, usually for doing something they have been trained not to do, like getting distracted from the people in the car.
The "Seal Mark XII UPS" is also known as a Hotplug from a company originally known as WiebeTech. I guess it is still marketed under that name.
It is a handy little device for moving computers around without losing power. Nothing real fancy here, just your stock computer forensic seizure device.
Is Truecrypt susceptable to a Rainbow Tables attack?
OK, let's say it takes a month to build the tables on 20TB of drive space. So what? The result would be cracking it in a few days after that.
There may also be other files on the computer that might help with cracking the password, like a paging file. Truecrypt suffers from the problem of holding the key in memory during use of the encrypted volume. So, if you can find it in memory you have the key. The paging file and any full memory dumps are going to be helpful in this mission.
The fact is that around 90% of murders that can be called "a crime of passion" involve a spouse. That rule guides the police and prosecutors.
They don't need to "prove" he killed her, all they need to do is build a circumstantial case that says he could have and he is the most likely to have. The prosecutor then needs to make sure that nobody else shows up that could be equally guilty. End of trial, and the guy gets convicted. Why? Don't they have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it? No, what they really have to do is show that there are no "reasonable doubts" about his guilt. Which pretty much comes down to (a) nobody else handy to pin it on and (b) nothing that says clearly he didn't do it. That is the content of a "circumstantial case" and it is how people get convicted all the time.
I believe it is how Scott Peterson got convicted and once in prison he offered to talk about how he did it.
There is no getting away from the fact that it is most often the spouse.
The problem with most of these cases is the guy thinks he is sooo very much smarter than the police and prosecutor. So he gets a little cocky and mouths off to the wrong people. Or, decides that he knows how to manage his defense better than his lawyer, who just goes along with his cocky arrogant client.
First rule of crime is you are never smarter than the police, just luckier. They have rotten luck and the odds are usually against them. Which can be countered quickly by the prosecutor that is on top of the game.
This guy's biggest problem will be his ego. Second problem is while everyone is thinking he is going to go free, the prosecutor pops up with "the real theory" which doesn't need the router and explains the phone call away.
99% of the time the only person that can get really annoyed with someone enough to kill them is the person they are married to. The police and prosecutors know this and it makes their job a lot simpler. So, did this guy do it? Probably. Will the prosecutor's case fail without the router? Probably not. These lawyers are really good at coming up with stuff that isn't all that technical, whereas the techy types continually fall back on relying on technology and ignore basic facts apart from the technology.
Don't be suprised when a witness comes forth that saw the guy driving off after putting a really big, heavy box in his car.
Their definition is always going to be that the bandwidth you are using is whatever they are measuring which is subject to change at any time without notice.
Anything else would just put them in a position where they say you transferred 1,735,287,513 bytes and you think you only transferred 1,735,287,512 and you (and your lawyer) want see what their measurements are based on. And of course, your lawyer gets a court to order them to come in an testify on how these measurements are being made and what the differences are between what you are measuring and what they are.
No. Sorry, nobody is going to get into that. It is very simple - they have an undisclosed and unspecified measurement technique that you, as their customer, accept. Anything else today ends up with endless lawsuits.
Why would they measure anything except bytes? Because it is easier, or because they have equipment that does so. Also, "bandwidth" is really a measurement of time these days. Do you believe the collection of routers and gateways between your home/office and the Internet backbone you are connected to use up more time in latency than the actual transfer of bytes on the Internet backbone? You better believe it. So really no matter how many bytes are being transferred in a packet, the packet itself is going to take the same amount of time to transfer - which ties up the equipment the same.
But what might an ISP really count? It could be transactions between the node and a DOCSIS modem. This isn't a TCP/IP connection so the packets aren't the same at all. They could count transactions between their node and the head end, whatever that might be. All of these things are "bandwidth" to a cable ISP and they might be more important than TCP/IP packets to the backbone, at least to the ISP.
I have had router problems for years with the standard OEM software. The last router that got replaced was a Dlink N (single band) one that was around $100. I decided to pop for the latest Dlink ???400 dual-band N router but I knew the prior one failed because of heat. The router is in a 2nd floor loft area which gets quite warm in the summer and the AC thermostat is on the 1st floor.
So, I made a little stand with a fan blowing up. The fan was salvaged from a computer with a noisy bearing. Being a 12-volt fan but being run on a 9-volt supply it spins a little slower but is utterly silent. The router is sitting on top of the fan and airflow isn't a problem anymore. The router stays nice and cool and hasn't failed in over six months of operation.
These things are designed to have convection cooling but none of them seem to have anywhere near what is sufficient. And putting them into an environment where the room air is above 80F is just asking for lots of failures.
TomTom is actually a vendor that could be replaced pretty easily. From what I understand, they really don't do much to the raw data that the get from either their own map source data or other vendors that they incorporate into their units.
Garmin, on the other hand, does considerable tailoring of the data to the GPS device and the GPS application. You can easily spot the difference with any unit when comparing to a Garmin. If it tells you frequently to "keep left" or "stay on the road" then it is using pretty raw data. Having worked for the company that is now Navteq it is fairly easy to spot occurrances in the data that need to be smoothed out but most systems aren't doing. Garmin does and it greatly improves the usability of their systems.
TomTom as well as most of the built-in systems are junk compared to a Garmin. I have a BMW with navigation and while it will eventually get you where you are going, it doesn't do a great job. My wife has an Enclave with navigation that is awful with plenty of "stay on the road" messages. We stick the Garmin up and use it in preference to either built-in system. Most Garmins can also accept red-light and speed camera data from other sources.
Your ISP is likely not counting bytes that transfer through a connection to your modem. They are probably using a number of interesting tricks instead, probably mostly because whatever they bought into does something different. At a minimum counting packets and saying they are all MTU-sized would give different results and would eliminate the overhead of counting bytes.
If you are really, really nice about it, they might tell you what they are really measuring. But they probably will not. Even if you have a bandwidth cap in place, they probably aren't going give you detailed information about what they are measuring and how they are measuring it. Mostly, this would be for fear that you will use that information to figure out some way to circumvent it. In this case information certainly equals power - they have it and do not want you to have it.
So, while your router can count bytes with the right software, it probably isn't going to match up with what they say you are using, assuming they report it to you. My guess is your number will be lower, but it could go either way. In any event, the only number that means anything in your relationship with your ISP is their number. You will not be able to convince them that your number is "right" or "more correct" than their number.
Unless you need a number for your own management purposes - like finding out your neighbor creating 45% of the traffic on your connection - I'd say this is a pointless exercise.
Was just there and I saw the signs. But, pulling pool towels never caused anyone to scan them, so the signage is just there to scare people. Nor were they really "checked in".
I think someone else is doing it for real.
I suppose it might be possible that they are scanning for them at the exits so if you walk out with 30 towels in your suitcase they can stop you.
If I could get anything "solar" that would have a six-year payback I'd do it. Unfortunately, here in Arizona (plenty of sun!!) it looks like the best that can be done is 15-20 year payback with a cost of around $30K. That is absurd from my point of view. The house probably will not even exist in 20 years. The lifespan of the developments that were built around 2005 or so are going to be very, very limited and they might as well just plow everything back into farmland. Nobody's house is worth more than about 75% of the mortgage which means they pretty much can't be sold for another 25 years or so.
When the neighbors start leaving and abandoning their houses I'm probably going to go as well.
So putting up something with a 20 year payback is silly. Oh, and that is with the electric company and tax rebates paying half of the cost.
The problem is that the FBI is lumping in credit card fraud with identity theft which makes it seem like a very large problem. Only thing is, credit card fraud isn't prosecuted. Some guy buys 50 credit card numbers and tries them one at a time to sign up for World of Warcraft - this happened to me. What happens is simple - I got a new credit card, his subscription got cancelled and that was the end of it. Period. No prosecution.
I had a credit card stolen by someone. They sent it to a relative who used in at a KMart store. We know the thief and knew it was her brother that used the card. The police could do nothing because the credit card companies refuse to prosecute.
Credit card fraud is not treated as a crime, so forget about it. It is at most an annoyance.
Real identity theft, where someone gets a new car loan in your name, is incredibly rare. But what everyone hears about are the FBI identity theft statistics which include credit card fraud. Only problem is, there are no prosecutions.
The guy that ripped off millions of credit card numbers from Sony might have a problem. Sony might want to prosecute, but it is unlikely to go anywhere. Want to know how hard it is to get a conviction in Russia with a Russian jury when the prosecution is for a US or Japanese company? Think about if it is Romania or Bulgaria. No, the only way anyone goes down for Sony is if Sony's own private army goes in an kidnaps them. I'll bet Sony has a room somewhere done up with all the gadgets they used to use for captured Chinese prisoners in the 1600s.
I'll bet Sony could recoup all their losses just by selling pictures of that guy's last couple of hours.
Well, there are hebephiles and pedophiles. What you are describing is hebephilia - teens. Pedophila is more oriented in the 2-10 age range.
I'm sorry, but I completely understand hebephilia. I do not get anyone that gets off on pictures of 3 year old little boys. I try to be open minded about a lot of things but I just don't get it with very small children as sex objects.
Credit card fraud isn't a crime. It is an annoyance but only very, very few people are prosecuted. The credit card companies refuse to prosecute in most cases and without their assistance there is nothing law enforcement can do.
Why do you think you can sell a collection of 100 skimmed card numbers for $50? Because nobody is going to jail over it, ever. How do you think underpaid waiters in restaurants are making ends meet, anyway?
If you are a merchant, you better have insurance for credit card fraud because the credit card companies push it all back on the merchants. The card companies lose nothing. And if you have insurance then you don't care either. Hence it is really a crime anymore.
Right. The whole RIM-UAE thing is concerning BIS-connected phones only. BES, which is what anyone with their own server is using, is completely different. With BES (yes even the free BES Express) the key is generated on the BES server that you own. The key isn't available to RIM and therefore whatever RIM has to do with the traffic with BES (unclear if they have anything at all to do with it), they can't see the content.
BIS, on the other hand, is completely in the hands of both the cell phone carrier and RIM. It involves polling of the email servers and whatever security there might be isn't too terribly hard to get around. Remember, your cell phone carrier is polling your email, pulling it down and sending it to the phone. If the traffic to the phone is encrypted, well la-de-da, the email is in plain text on the carrier's server.