Is by the prosecutor and the police. In countries where prostitution is legal, women selecting this as their choice of work of their own free will are the norm and exceptions are so rare that they make the papers. Also, "pimps" basically do not exist. Hence what is going on here is a deranged war on women that find selling sex for money gives them a sound economic basis and on men that are willing to buy that service. All the "trafficking" nonsense and "helpless" bullshit is just the same vile lies used to justify locking up as many people as possible (and most certainly those "rescued" face the same fate and will have the money they earned stolen in addition) over what in any sane country is a matter of a service rendered between consenting adults. The very kind of language used by the "authorities" already shows what this really is.
You are wrong. The university that gave you that title can remove it under certain circumstances, such as when you have damaged the reputation of the field it is in. I know, for example, of a PhD Lawyer that lost his PhD after being caught robbing a bank. It is not a legal procedure, it is an academic procedure. You may seek legal redress, but that usually fails. The same can happen when it turns out you falsified results.
The data was copied in Europe. Some of the users will be European. Nobody accused OkCupid of anything and hence where the company is based is immaterial. Are you stupid?
First, the $1 is misdirection: You still need a real computer to do anything with this. Second, ATTINY85-based boards with similar connectivity are about $1.50 for a single on Ebay including shipping from China. Search for "Digispark" (which was a Kickstarter project that produced CC-BY-SA 3.0 open software and hardware and got $300'000 for the $5000 asked). And the Digispark works with the Arduino IDE. I have a few.
Bottom line: These people are years late to the game and there is absolutely nothing revolutionary or new in what they are trying to do. In fact, they could be trying to repackage the Digispark.
That would be my take on the issue. Alternatively, she went "full denial", which is a typical CEO and management mode when presented with facts that do not agree to their "vision".
Well, nobody said it cannot work. The problem is it cannot work (at this time) safely and that it cannot work efficiently. It is just too hard to do. A good example of this situation are flying cars: Doable in principle, some working prototypes exist, but extremely expensive and until we have working AI pilots (which may be "never") not safe to use for most people.
My guess is she fired the good engineers because they were pointing out fundamental limits and she did not want to hear how much effort this would actually be and that this would be very hard to make safe. I doubt very much we will see this anytime soon and maybe not ever as a commercial product. Putting induction coils into flat surfaces is just a lot easier, cheaper and safer. And it already works, the only thing missing is a standard for the phone-side.
Right on the mark. The measure of truly smart people is that they know and understand their limits. (Which also is the thing you absolutely must know in order to be able to extend them.) Idiots do not have limits, they can already do everything well.
While mostly true, the explanation is simple and it is not the kind of sexism you think it is. It is the reverse: She was heralded as "genius" specifically because she is a woman. Now all those stupid people that did that have egg on their faces and blame her, instead of their own gullibility.
There is also a second aspect: Successful con-women are a lot rarer than successful con-men, hence she is more newsworthy when exposed.
The thing with "impossible" is that most people, including most engineers, do not understand what it means. First, you have "impossible technologically at this time". That means you have to be up-to-date and know what is missing and why current tech cannot do it. Most people (again, including engineers) vastly overestimate their understanding of what current technology can and cannot do, hence both verdicts of "impossible" that are wrong and "possible" that are also very wrong. Second, you have "impossible with regards to how we think this universe works". This requires a solid understanding of physical, organizational and other limits.
For example, something impossible in the second class is brute-forcing a 256 bit key. Something that may be in the first class is breaking AES-256, because we may just have incomplete knowledge of its vulnerabilities. (This is rather unlikely, BTW.)
There is also the third version of "impossible", which really is "I have no clue how to do it", and that can lead to the situation you describe.
1. Most startups fail, even if they have a valid idea 2. This is really very obviously not possible except maybe with extreme effort. Sound carries almost no energy and is very hard to focus. It is also extremely dangerous at higher energy levels.
The people that fell for this have no clue about elementary physics. And yes, it is that obvious.
1. It was not made public, it was only accessible after you created an account and hence agreed to their TOS. 2. European privacy law says even if made public, it can only be used for the purpose it was made public for (e.g. Phone-Book). Anything else requires explicit agreement by the data owner, and that is the respective person. No such agreement was obtained.
Seriously, understand the facts first. This was a criminal act.
a) It was not public. Access required an account (with associated agreement to their TOS). b) European privacy laws says the data belongs to the users, and each one has to explicitly agree to its uses
This was a criminal act. At the very least these people should lose their academic titles or hope of getting one.
Oh, and under European privacy laws, that data belongs to the users, not OkCupid. It cannot be legally used for any purpose the users did not agree to. So definitely a criminal act.
A clean installer will not work on anything except the files it came with and it will not run any code (package or otherwise) that a user gives to it with elevated privileges. And there we have the problem: On Windows, you are supposed to give root-permissions to far too many things, making them pretty meaningless.
You misunderstand. The OS has had those for a while, but privilege escalation was not taken seriously on user machines and hence the level of privilege was mostly meaningless as escalation without permission was very easy.
I might add that preventing things a user starts from destroying all that user's data is not actually a task of the permission system.
The correct fix for 7z is to fix the vulnerability. As 7z must be able to read and write arbitrary files to do its job, there is _nothing_ the permission system can do, not even MAC like SELinux would help. All those people blaming the "OS" really do not understand what they are talking about.
I fully agree to that. And from my observations, the way people run containers, they usually get all the original vulnerabilities and in addition those of the container as well. They think that a container is somehow as good as a separate machine.
What happens here is far simpler: One group got away with an amazing payout and had a real chance of making it even larger. This lead to some people re-focusing their attempts, because who knew before that security at some banks using Swift was this pathetic. And no, all these claims of "advanced" and "sophisticated" really only serve to daemonize the attackers, so the affected banks and Swift have can avoid admitting how massively they have screwed up.
The whole thing is not a surprise at all. Experts have observed "cheaper than possible" security to be used all around the finance industry in the aftermath of 2008, because management that does not get it is making the decisions and is trying to save money on security (and reliability and people as well) in order to make IT more "profitable". That almost universally costs a lot later.
We are now at the point where "later" is reached. This will get worse for at least 5...10 years until all the bad decisions of the last few years have been fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Is by the prosecutor and the police. In countries where prostitution is legal, women selecting this as their choice of work of their own free will are the norm and exceptions are so rare that they make the papers. Also, "pimps" basically do not exist. Hence what is going on here is a deranged war on women that find selling sex for money gives them a sound economic basis and on men that are willing to buy that service. All the "trafficking" nonsense and "helpless" bullshit is just the same vile lies used to justify locking up as many people as possible (and most certainly those "rescued" face the same fate and will have the money they earned stolen in addition) over what in any sane country is a matter of a service rendered between consenting adults. The very kind of language used by the "authorities" already shows what this really is.
A criminal act, because European privacy laws are criminal law. They can send you to prison for violating them. Rarely ever happens, but still...
I see one idiot here and that is you.
You are wrong. The university that gave you that title can remove it under certain circumstances, such as when you have damaged the reputation of the field it is in. I know, for example, of a PhD Lawyer that lost his PhD after being caught robbing a bank. It is not a legal procedure, it is an academic procedure. You may seek legal redress, but that usually fails. The same can happen when it turns out you falsified results.
Are you stupid? The data was copied in Europe and some users will be European. Where the company is based is completely immaterial.
The data was copied in Europe. Some of the users will be European. Nobody accused OkCupid of anything and hence where the company is based is immaterial. Are you stupid?
First, the $1 is misdirection: You still need a real computer to do anything with this. Second, ATTINY85-based boards with similar connectivity are about $1.50 for a single on Ebay including shipping from China. Search for "Digispark" (which was a Kickstarter project that produced CC-BY-SA 3.0 open software and hardware and got $300'000 for the $5000 asked). And the Digispark works with the Arduino IDE. I have a few.
Bottom line: These people are years late to the game and there is absolutely nothing revolutionary or new in what they are trying to do. In fact, they could be trying to repackage the Digispark.
That would be my take on the issue. Alternatively, she went "full denial", which is a typical CEO and management mode when presented with facts that do not agree to their "vision".
Well, nobody said it cannot work. The problem is it cannot work (at this time) safely and that it cannot work efficiently. It is just too hard to do. A good example of this situation are flying cars: Doable in principle, some working prototypes exist, but extremely expensive and until we have working AI pilots (which may be "never") not safe to use for most people.
My guess is she fired the good engineers because they were pointing out fundamental limits and she did not want to hear how much effort this would actually be and that this would be very hard to make safe. I doubt very much we will see this anytime soon and maybe not ever as a commercial product. Putting induction coils into flat surfaces is just a lot easier, cheaper and safer. And it already works, the only thing missing is a standard for the phone-side.
Also your ears will blow up (still enough sound energy at lower frequencies there) and your clothes may catch fire.
Right on the mark. The measure of truly smart people is that they know and understand their limits. (Which also is the thing you absolutely must know in order to be able to extend them.) Idiots do not have limits, they can already do everything well.
While mostly true, the explanation is simple and it is not the kind of sexism you think it is. It is the reverse: She was heralded as "genius" specifically because she is a woman. Now all those stupid people that did that have egg on their faces and blame her, instead of their own gullibility.
There is also a second aspect: Successful con-women are a lot rarer than successful con-men, hence she is more newsworthy when exposed.
The thing with "impossible" is that most people, including most engineers, do not understand what it means. First, you have "impossible technologically at this time". That means you have to be up-to-date and know what is missing and why current tech cannot do it. Most people (again, including engineers) vastly overestimate their understanding of what current technology can and cannot do, hence both verdicts of "impossible" that are wrong and "possible" that are also very wrong. Second, you have "impossible with regards to how we think this universe works". This requires a solid understanding of physical, organizational and other limits.
For example, something impossible in the second class is brute-forcing a 256 bit key. Something that may be in the first class is breaking AES-256, because we may just have incomplete knowledge of its vulnerabilities. (This is rather unlikely, BTW.)
There is also the third version of "impossible", which really is "I have no clue how to do it", and that can lead to the situation you describe.
While you are mostly right, practical solar electric has been around for quite a while. It just depends on where you are.
1. Most startups fail, even if they have a valid idea
2. This is really very obviously not possible except maybe with extreme effort. Sound carries almost no energy and is very hard to focus. It is also extremely dangerous at higher energy levels.
The people that fell for this have no clue about elementary physics. And yes, it is that obvious.
Making it public IS permission.
1. It was not made public, it was only accessible after you created an account and hence agreed to their TOS.
2. European privacy law says even if made public, it can only be used for the purpose it was made public for (e.g. Phone-Book). Anything else requires explicit agreement by the data owner, and that is the respective person. No such agreement was obtained.
Seriously, understand the facts first. This was a criminal act.
a) It was not public. Access required an account (with associated agreement to their TOS).
b) European privacy laws says the data belongs to the users, and each one has to explicitly agree to its uses
This was a criminal act. At the very least these people should lose their academic titles or hope of getting one.
Oh, and under European privacy laws, that data belongs to the users, not OkCupid. It cannot be legally used for any purpose the users did not agree to. So definitely a criminal act.
When you create an account, you accept their Terms of Service. Hence, this may well have been a criminal act.
A clean installer will not work on anything except the files it came with and it will not run any code (package or otherwise) that a user gives to it with elevated privileges. And there we have the problem: On Windows, you are supposed to give root-permissions to far too many things, making them pretty meaningless.
You misunderstand. The OS has had those for a while, but privilege escalation was not taken seriously on user machines and hence the level of privilege was mostly meaningless as escalation without permission was very easy.
I might add that preventing things a user starts from destroying all that user's data is not actually a task of the permission system.
The correct fix for 7z is to fix the vulnerability. As 7z must be able to read and write arbitrary files to do its job, there is _nothing_ the permission system can do, not even MAC like SELinux would help. All those people blaming the "OS" really do not understand what they are talking about.
I fully agree to that. And from my observations, the way people run containers, they usually get all the original vulnerabilities and in addition those of the container as well. They think that a container is somehow as good as a separate machine.
Not even that and by a far cry. Maybe "full control of what the clueless user thinks is important".
Actual experts call them "morons that keep at it and eventually get lucky due to bigger morons on the other side".
What happens here is far simpler: One group got away with an amazing payout and had a real chance of making it even larger. This lead to some people re-focusing their attempts, because who knew before that security at some banks using Swift was this pathetic. And no, all these claims of "advanced" and "sophisticated" really only serve to daemonize the attackers, so the affected banks and Swift have can avoid admitting how massively they have screwed up.
The whole thing is not a surprise at all. Experts have observed "cheaper than possible" security to be used all around the finance industry in the aftermath of 2008, because management that does not get it is making the decisions and is trying to save money on security (and reliability and people as well) in order to make IT more "profitable". That almost universally costs a lot later.
We are now at the point where "later" is reached. This will get worse for at least 5...10 years until all the bad decisions of the last few years have been fixed.