You know, this reply doesn't just have the same weight as the one coming from @iraq. Soooooooooooooo, any news on if I'll ever be able to take a test out here?
The entire point of a protest is to disrupt an event or the regular flow of life. If UN delegates cannot get into the UN because of the thousands of protesters around it, that sends a message to the world.
To quote the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If you're disrupting an event or interrupting the normal flow of life, you're no longer peaceably assembling. You're now no longer under the protection of the first amendment, and are breaking the law.
I understand the entire brouhaha surrounding "First amendment zones", and about the only time I've ever heard them mentioned was in the course of political protests that occurred at rallies in the USA. If you'd RTFA, you would have seen this:
The Threat and Local Observation Notices or TALON, was established in 2002 by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as a way to collect and evaluate information about possible threats to U.S. servicemembers and defense civilians all over the world.
Last time I checked protestors at the DNC and RNC weren't considered threats to U.S. servicemembers. This TALON system is mainly oriented at protestors and perceived threats of US military bases around the world, not some political convention in the USA that doesn't have any strong ties to the DoD.
There actually is far more potential for horrid jokes than the ever so obvious penis jokes regarding the Wii. If you own one or read more in to the documentation for them you find that Nintendo loves to throw the word Wii in to everything.
So, to beat a dead horse: Don't you mean annoying, Wii-tarded jokes?
I'll add in another $100 for a legal fund run by the first reputable law firm to file suit against Jason Fortuny. If and when that ever happens, reply to my comment. Those send email back to me.
I had found that as well, as when I wrote my reply I was operating on memory, as there were a number of filters in place. And after doing some research after, I found that I was wrong.
Eve-Online is running off of RamSan-400. RamSan-400 is a RAM based storage device with battery backup. Google provides easy links to information on it. The only part that I regret is this: I had to dredge it up using Lynx through the eve-online.com site.
This technology has already been put to use in a commercial environment, and has given outstanding performance from what I've seen. The game EVE Online http://www.eve-online.com/ has already done this with their clustered servers and greatly reduced the lag. Keep in mind that this is a game where there is only a single universe (No shards or other servers) and they quite often push over 20,000 simultaneously logged in accounts at a time.
When placed in the right environment, this technology just screams. A good example would be for huge database operations that have hundreds if not thousands of concurrent accesses. The databases that maintain the pay information for the US Military come to mind easily.
Unless the FBI or some other TLA is involved (Either from the USA or other countries), and are already monitoring the botnet and gathering evidence for prosecution? Quite honestly, issuing a command like self destruction would seem like the criminal is ditching and running, and they would have your IP address at that point...
Again, that's a lot of risk to be taking on. Because there *are* convictions for people running botnets, which means that there *are* governmental agencies monitoring some of them, trying to catch the ringleader(s).
Well, depending on your personal ethics, the moral ground isn't the important one to be considering. It's the legal one. I do have a little experience with the amazing abilities of the judicial system to screw people over, and I would really NOT want to put myself in that situation.
Causing damage is exactly what you would be doing by making the botnet self destruct. It's not a matter of weighing which is more damage, leaving the botnet up or destroying it, it's a matter of the fact that you're causing damage in the first place. And that's the way the courts will look at it.
When you issue a command or code to cause a botnet to self destruct, you are crossing the line from greyhat hacking to blackhat hacking. You're no longer a witness. Which also makes you liable under whatever laws exist in your country of residence for hacking. Because you're gaining illicit access to their computers (the infected botnet) And accessing data (causing the botnet to self destruct)
Which is why if you're going to do botnet hunting you either get to ally yourself with law enforcement and contact the ISPs, or kill the botnets. Personally I would prefer the safer of the two.
I thought it might be handy to step back, take a closer and in depth look at this article and try to find out what it *really* means.
The regulations will require airlines to collect and maintain in an electronic database the following passenger information
So this means that the CDC isn't going to be holding on to the information, it's going to be the airlines, right?
The same rules would also apply to passengers on international cruise lines and international ferry companies at U.S. ports, which the CDC estimated carry about 75 million passengers a year.
So now it's going to be cruise lines and what seems to be any form of international travel that they can potentially track. I'd be willing to place bets that they will *not* attempt this with any border crossings though, because if you thought the lines were long before... No-one would go for it, plus it would be political suicide to decide to break or hamper NAFTA at this stage of the game.
The CDC plans to collect data at what it calls the point of sales(POS) and estimates this would spread the cost among airlines, travel agents and global reservation systems used by airlines, hotels and travel agents.
Now then, that implies that these databases are going to be maintained by the people you book your travel through as well as who is actually moving you around.
But if you stop and think about it, how much of that information do they ALREADY get from you when you try to book some travel. Name, address, and flight information they already have. Email address? What if you booked online? Phone number? Most places I got flight tickets from already ask for that. Passport? They ask you for that when traveling, right? This likely means that the airline is already recording that. Emergency contact? Depending on what you're going on, they likely ask you for that. When's the last time you went for a package vacation deal? Oh, wait, that's where they're going to get your traveling companions/group. So it sounds like they're not going to be adding any questions that you'll be asked for when you travel, they're just trying to get at that pre-existing information.
Now I could quote the whole article, but it sounds like the CDC got pissed during SARS, because when they did try to ask for information, they got red tape from the travel industry (requiring written requests was one listed), so they're trying for some legislation that would require the travel industry to hand over the information in a timely manner.
As for those worried about Big Brother(TM)
The new regulations, which are available on the CDC's Web site and will be posted for a 60-day comment period in the Federal Register starting Nov. 30, would require airlines, travel agents and global reservations systems to collect personal information that exceeds the quantity of information currently collected by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or the Homeland Security Department (DHS).
Okay, so that means that the TSA and DHS are already collecting information on you. This means that for anti-terrorism purposes, no matter what, they already have a bead on you. So all the jockeying around about "OMG!!1 Big brother is watching me!" is moot, because if you bought a ticket, they(TSA and DHS) already have your information.
Furthermore, since government agencies have such a SPLENDID time of co-operating with other agencies (as evidenced by the fiasco caused by Katrina, 9/11, etc.) I highly doubt that the CDC is going to play nice and expedient with outside agencies trying to gain access to the information available to them.
Bureaucratic infighting is just as bad, if not worse than corporate infighting. Good examples are just how well local PD's co-operate with county, state and federal police units, up to and including the Coast Guard. It usually ends up as a cluster... Well, you know what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, this reply doesn't just have the same weight as the one coming from @iraq. Soooooooooooooo, any news on if I'll ever be able to take a test out here?
The entire point of a protest is to disrupt an event or the regular flow of life. If UN delegates cannot get into the UN because of the thousands of protesters around it, that sends a message to the world.
To quote the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If you're disrupting an event or interrupting the normal flow of life, you're no longer peaceably assembling. You're now no longer under the protection of the first amendment, and are breaking the law.
I understand the entire brouhaha surrounding "First amendment zones", and about the only time I've ever heard them mentioned was in the course of political protests that occurred at rallies in the USA. If you'd RTFA, you would have seen this:
The Threat and Local Observation Notices or TALON, was established in 2002 by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as a way to collect and evaluate information about possible threats to U.S. servicemembers and defense civilians all over the world.
Last time I checked protestors at the DNC and RNC weren't considered threats to U.S. servicemembers. This TALON system is mainly oriented at protestors and perceived threats of US military bases around the world, not some political convention in the USA that doesn't have any strong ties to the DoD.
There actually is far more potential for horrid jokes than the ever so obvious penis jokes regarding the Wii. If you own one or read more in to the documentation for them you find that Nintendo loves to throw the word Wii in to everything.
So, to beat a dead horse: Don't you mean annoying, Wii-tarded jokes?
I'll add in another $100 for a legal fund run by the first reputable law firm to file suit against Jason Fortuny. If and when that ever happens, reply to my comment. Those send email back to me.
I had found that as well, as when I wrote my reply I was operating on memory, as there were a number of filters in place. And after doing some research after, I found that I was wrong.
Eve-Online is running off of RamSan-400. RamSan-400 is a RAM based storage device with battery backup. Google provides easy links to information on it. The only part that I regret is this: I had to dredge it up using Lynx through the eve-online.com site.
This technology has already been put to use in a commercial environment, and has given outstanding performance from what I've seen. The game EVE Online http://www.eve-online.com/ has already done this with their clustered servers and greatly reduced the lag. Keep in mind that this is a game where there is only a single universe (No shards or other servers) and they quite often push over 20,000 simultaneously logged in accounts at a time.
When placed in the right environment, this technology just screams. A good example would be for huge database operations that have hundreds if not thousands of concurrent accesses. The databases that maintain the pay information for the US Military come to mind easily.
Unless the FBI or some other TLA is involved (Either from the USA or other countries), and are already monitoring the botnet and gathering evidence for prosecution? Quite honestly, issuing a command like self destruction would seem like the criminal is ditching and running, and they would have your IP address at that point...
Again, that's a lot of risk to be taking on. Because there *are* convictions for people running botnets, which means that there *are* governmental agencies monitoring some of them, trying to catch the ringleader(s).
Well, depending on your personal ethics, the moral ground isn't the important one to be considering. It's the legal one. I do have a little experience with the amazing abilities of the judicial system to screw people over, and I would really NOT want to put myself in that situation. Causing damage is exactly what you would be doing by making the botnet self destruct. It's not a matter of weighing which is more damage, leaving the botnet up or destroying it, it's a matter of the fact that you're causing damage in the first place. And that's the way the courts will look at it.
When you issue a command or code to cause a botnet to self destruct, you are crossing the line from greyhat hacking to blackhat hacking. You're no longer a witness. Which also makes you liable under whatever laws exist in your country of residence for hacking. Because you're gaining illicit access to their computers (the infected botnet) And accessing data (causing the botnet to self destruct)
Which is why if you're going to do botnet hunting you either get to ally yourself with law enforcement and contact the ISPs, or kill the botnets. Personally I would prefer the safer of the two.
So the news headlines would read: Paraplegic to walk through the power of nose mining
I thought it might be handy to step back, take a closer and in depth look at this article and try to find out what it *really* means.
The regulations will require airlines to collect and maintain in an electronic database the following passenger information
So this means that the CDC isn't going to be holding on to the information, it's going to be the airlines, right?
The same rules would also apply to passengers on international cruise lines and international ferry companies at U.S. ports, which the CDC estimated carry about 75 million passengers a year.
So now it's going to be cruise lines and what seems to be any form of international travel that they can potentially track. I'd be willing to place bets that they will *not* attempt this with any border crossings though, because if you thought the lines were long before... No-one would go for it, plus it would be political suicide to decide to break or hamper NAFTA at this stage of the game.
The CDC plans to collect data at what it calls the point of sales(POS) and estimates this would spread the cost among airlines, travel agents and global reservation systems used by airlines, hotels and travel agents.
Now then, that implies that these databases are going to be maintained by the people you book your travel through as well as who is actually moving you around.
But if you stop and think about it, how much of that information do they ALREADY get from you when you try to book some travel. Name, address, and flight information they already have. Email address? What if you booked online? Phone number? Most places I got flight tickets from already ask for that. Passport? They ask you for that when traveling, right? This likely means that the airline is already recording that. Emergency contact? Depending on what you're going on, they likely ask you for that. When's the last time you went for a package vacation deal? Oh, wait, that's where they're going to get your traveling companions/group. So it sounds like they're not going to be adding any questions that you'll be asked for when you travel, they're just trying to get at that pre-existing information.
Now I could quote the whole article, but it sounds like the CDC got pissed during SARS, because when they did try to ask for information, they got red tape from the travel industry (requiring written requests was one listed), so they're trying for some legislation that would require the travel industry to hand over the information in a timely manner.
As for those worried about Big Brother(TM)
The new regulations, which are available on the CDC's Web site and will be posted for a 60-day comment period in the Federal Register starting Nov. 30, would require airlines, travel agents and global reservations systems to collect personal information that exceeds the quantity of information currently collected by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) or the Homeland Security Department (DHS).
Okay, so that means that the TSA and DHS are already collecting information on you. This means that for anti-terrorism purposes, no matter what, they already have a bead on you. So all the jockeying around about "OMG!!1 Big brother is watching me!" is moot, because if you bought a ticket, they(TSA and DHS) already have your information.
Furthermore, since government agencies have such a SPLENDID time of co-operating with other agencies (as evidenced by the fiasco caused by Katrina, 9/11, etc.) I highly doubt that the CDC is going to play nice and expedient with outside agencies trying to gain access to the information available to them.
Bureaucratic infighting is just as bad, if not worse than corporate infighting. Good examples are just how well local PD's co-operate with county, state and federal police units, up to and including the Coast Guard. It usually ends up as a cluster... Well, you know what I mean.
And there are already signs of just th