I don't know about the paid version, but I couldn't schedule scans when I had the free version. I only scanned when I remembered to do it manually, and that was always when I was using the computer, so I had to work through the associated resource consumption.
... [in World War II] our entire nation mobilized for war: Detroit began producing more tanks and less cars; when you went to the movies you saw Movietone newsreel releases instead of ads for popcorn and sodas; American citizens had victory gardens, fuel rationing, and metal collection drives. The war affected everyone in America. If you put this in perspective of a future war in cyberspace, I think the best question is what will be the nation's response to cyber war? Are cyber threats, cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, cyber war purely the province of the military or the entire nation? The ways in which we answer this question will determine our future priorities and funding.
This brings up an important point about current and future warfare. Pretty much everyone understands military conflict for the control of land, so they can decide whether it is justified and offer their support accordingly. The War on Terror is somewhat different. Most Americans don't understand the motives and actions of the people we are fighting against or the people we are trying to protect. I think that this is why most people are disconnected from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't really have enough information to form an opinion, so they can't really find it in themselves to support (or oppose) the war effort in the same way that previous generations did in previous wars.
Is strong civilian support important or necessary to win wars? I don't know, but if it is, cyber-warfare is going to be hard. Nobody will be able to even understand what is going on or why, so they won't be able to get behind it. I don't really know what the public could do to assist in a primarily cyberspace conflict in the same way that the efforts he mentioned benefited a land war. Bandwidth rationing? Donating computer cycles to the military ( a la SETI@Home)? Vigilante cracking? Whatever it is, people won't do it because they won't know what the heck is going on.
our Constitution was adopted in 1787 and has since been amended ("changed") 27 times
He answers 19 intelligent, informed questions in an intelligent, informed manner and then thinks that we don't know what "amended" means and can't figure out how to look it up. I'm not offended, but it is kind of unusual.
Although one of its secrets (its existence) has been exposed, it will still tend toward secrecy by keeping its other secrets secret. Or maybe the only secret it's keeping is that it isn't very good at being secretive.
to do the same in a MacBook Pro takes 40 minutes and chances are it is going back together bent with a couple screws stripped.
And whose fault is that? I guess making your products complex and tedious to repair to drive up the price of upgrades is a legitimate business move, but it certainly isn't good engineering.
By the way, we're talking about upgrades straight out of the factory. I don't know how Apple's assembly line works, but it could be that when they put the HDD in, the computer isn't fully assembled yet, and the install is easier. And surely the difficulty of installing a 250 GB drive in the factory isn't greater than that of installing a 120 GB drive in the factory. If their assembly process makes it otherwise, I can see how they might find it hard to design a straight-forward end-user upgrade process.
They can tax cigarettes heavily because most Americans don't smoke at all. The cigarette taxes don't affect them. But pretty much everyone eats at least a little junk food, so everyone would be affected, and everyone would be angry.
Kahn is Hebrew and is a name most often possessed by Jews. Khan is of mixed origin and is most commonly seen in Indians. Some of those people could accurately be described as brown skinned, but neither Israel nor India is widely known for terrorism, whatever you personally may think about the policies of those countries.
Also, he hasn't been sentenced yet. Legal proceedings have barely begun, as far as I can tell.
One time on my networking class (branded by Cisco), one guy was being generally mischievous, and the teacher told him to stop. A little later, he pulled some Cat-5 off the spool and started swinging it around the room. The teacher grabbed him and made him write "I will not swing cables in Cisco class" one thousand times on the board. At the time, I thought it was an overreaction on the part of the instructor, but now I know: the cable must have been one of these. It's a shame that kid only ever wrote about five hundred of his thousand. You shouldn't swing $499 cables in Cisco class.
I have Verizon, and I didn't even know they had a news server. I guess they don't bother putting that in the book you get when you sign up that lists all of their services. I use Google Groups for my occasional forays into Usenet. So this event will have no real effect on me. I'll be going off to college in the fall, so I won't even have them that much longer. That notwithstanding, I'm pissed. Both in a "moral outrage" sense because they're suppressing speech that ought to be free and in a "they're taking what's mine" sense because I used to get the whole Internet (public, that is), and now I only get most of it for the same price. Arrrgghh. And they're even doing it so stupidly, blocking one thousand times what they have to, when they don't even really have to do anything. And they were doing so well with not resetting my Bittorrent connections. *Sigh.*
Fill them with contraband media of various types and give them out to your users (and lusers). You could systematize it. If someone goes six months without "breaking" their computer by changing the settings, not liking it, and forgetting how to change them back, that person might get a 4-gig full of random music that you pulled off of Gnutella (or whatever). If a user goes a year without unintentionally creating a security risk, he gets 50 GB of unsorted porn. For the god of a man who has gone his entire career without a trouble ticket and is miraculously using ten-year-old hardware with no failures, you could have a 300 GB drive with all of the best video games, modern and classic.
And for the jackass who wants a new monitor because he changed the display resolution, tries out script-kiddie hacking tutorials on his coworkers, constantly demands faster equipment for him to do nothing with, looks at thumb drives he found in the parking lot, and gives up his password for a candy bar, you could stealthily replace his hard drive with a very small one containing Windows ME.
I am not a military historian, but up until recently, it seems as though waging war against another entity primarily meant taking control of their physical territory on the ground and taking out important resources by bombing or some similar high-impact targeted strike. How will Internet warfare change the basic structure of a military campaign? What would a full-scale war incorporating cyber warfare look like?
Some more specific questions in this vein:
If we were in a war with another country, would cyber warfare be overt or covert, i.e. would someone on NBC ever say, "Yesterday, the Army took out several important pieces of Internet infrastructure in Country X. Here to comment is General so-and-so."?
Would an Internet-warfare "bombardment" (to prevent communication and cause confusion) precede a physical invasion, or would the invasion and Internet warfare commence simultaneously?
Would you ever consider trying to get another entity to surrender simply by ripping apart their communication networks spectacularly without even physically attacking them?
How do you envision cyber warfare being applied to conflicts that are primarily against groups of insurgents (Iraq for instance), as opposed to a war against another nation?
The president should represent the average person of the United States of America.
The finest citizen of the United States of America should be president. Failing that (and wow are we failing it), the presidential candidate who most resembles the finest American should be president. Most Americans would agree that the finest American does not represent the views of the average American, because most Americans disagree with the average American for varying reasons, and they disagree even more about what qualifies the finest citizen. But I think almost everyone would agree that whatever makes a person excellent, the president ought to possess it.
I just graduated high school in the US. I don't know about the national trend, but I do know that the difficulty of math exams varied wildly even within my (public) school, which Newsweek tells me is one of the top 900 in the country, for whatever that's worth..
My teacher for AP Calculus BC gave extremely difficult exams. We were almost never allowed to use calculators. The smartest kids in the school (not bragging, just saying) were almost never able to finish his tests in the time allotted. When I took the actual AP exam, I found it relatively easy, as did my classmates. Mostly this is from the tests in class being difficult. I couldn't say whether the AP exam was too easy. Of course, I haven't gotten my score back yet, so take my impression of the exam with a grain of salt.
Another math teacher in my school is famous for the easiness of his classes. I have never taken one, but some of my friends have. One of the courses he teaches is Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry. (The sequence at my school is weird. This course is like the end of Algebra II and the beginning of precalculus with some stats thrown in.) He lets you use the calculator for absolutely everything. I know a kid who aced a trig exam without knowing what sine actually meant. This teacher also gave a kid points back on a test because he messed up the same concept on two different questions. He guarantees everyone in his classes at least a C+ on the final exam. It is routine to get an A in his class by playing AoE while he lectures (we have laptops), telling him you're getting there when he checks to see if you did your homework, and not finishing tests just because you don't feel like it.
The other math teachers that I had in high school (at the regular and honors levels) were somewhere between these two extremes. The calculus teacher gave the same difficulty of tests in Honors Precalculus as he did in AP Calculus BC.
You can "increase your worldwide presence" until the cows come home, but if you never get paid for it, you'll have to find another line of work. Creators must make money somehow, or else most of them won't have a strong incentive to create, and culture will suffer.
IANAL (in Sweden or anywhere else), but I imagine that illegal file sharing in Sweden is illegal because it is in violation of Sweden's copyright laws. If this is the case, then any changes that your friend tries to make to the law should address all of the behavior governed by copyright law, not just file sharing. Part of the reason that file sharing has been such a big issue is that, when it became commonplace, existing legislation was ill-suited to it. So we have vast numbers of people engaging in behavior that is generally considered to be illegal, and companies are suing many people that have, by most accounts, done nothing wrong.
If you favor increased freedom to file share for consumers, then you should advocate increased freedom to share in general. New legislation should anticipate that new technologies will be created. That way, maybe there won't be another big mess twenty years from now.
How do you envision cyber warfare being applied to conflicts that are primarily against groups of insurgents (Iraq for instance), as opposed to a war against another nation?
I am not a military historian, but up until recently, it seems as though waging war against another entity primarily meant taking control of their physical territory on the ground and taking out important resources by bombing or some similar high-impact targeted strike. How will Internet warfare change the basic structure of a military campaign? What would a full-scale war incorporating cyber warfare look like?
Some more specific questions in this vein:
If we were in a war with another country, would cyber warfare be overt or covert, i.e. would someone on NBC ever say, "Yesterday, Airforce Cybercommandos took out several important pieces of Internet infrastructure in Country X. Here to comment is General so-and-so."?
Would an Internet-warfare "bombardment" (to prevent communication and cause confusion) precede a physical invasion, or would the invasion and Internet warfare commence simultaneously?
Would you ever consider trying to get another entity to surrender simply by ripping apart their communication networks spectacularly without even physically attacking them?
Even if this guy had no close conspirators, which isn't known at this point, it's been reported previously that there were a lot of participants that got riled up by some of the maybe more influential people.
This article says that there were a bunch of script kiddies who took their cues from more experienced attackers. Dmitri Galushkevich probably did not mastermind all of that stuff. It's still unclear what exacly went on, as far as I can see.
We need to deal with some long-neglected issues before we tackle the media ownership rules," [Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein] said. "We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color. And we need to implement improvements in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities.
First of all, how is the (potential) suppression of freedom of the press by consolidated media less important or pressing than the race or gender of the owners (or possibly owner) of said media? Secondly, how is changing that within the jurisdiction of the FCC or any government body? The person who buys something should be the person who made a deal with the person selling it, not a person chosen based on their race or gender by some third party.
I don't really know what it means to "implement improvement in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities." Would the FCC send out their own reporters to do a better job than the news station? I don't understand what this guy is talking about?
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
From TFA:
Though the report concludes the FCC generally follows its rulemaking processes, it also found that advocates who represent consumer and public interests said they were not always informed about issues up for vote, or when the right time would be to meet with FCC staff.
The report calls this discrepancy an "imbalance of information" and says that it "runs contrary to the principles of transparency and equal opportunity."
It was kind of hard to tell from the article, but I think that these are gadgets for your customized search page, not ads to be placed on other websites.
That article doesn't say anything about Storm. From TFA that you posted:
The cyberattacks on Estonia, like most other ambitious campaigns, unfolded across multiple fronts. The foot soldiers were called script kiddies -- relatively unsophisticated troublemakers who copied programs line for line off hacker Web sites. Their primary weapon was the ping attack, a simple request for a response from a Web server, repeated hundreds of times per second.... Then there was the air force: botnets. These giant squadrons were made up of hundreds of thousands of individual computers from around the world that had been hijacked previously by hackers. The computers, known as zombies, could be made to repeatedly flood designated Internet addresses with a variety of useless network-clogging data.... Finally, there were the special forces -- hackers who could infiltrate individual Web sites, delete legitimate content, and post their own messages.
Also from TFA:
This veiled threat came as yet another 58 separate botnet attacks rained down on Estonia over the course of the day.
There you have it. Many individual, independent script kiddies and skilled hackers in addition to the multiple botnets, not one of which was identified as Storm.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the paid version, but I couldn't schedule scans when I had the free version. I only scanned when I remembered to do it manually, and that was always when I was using the computer, so I had to work through the associated resource consumption.
... [in World War II] our entire nation mobilized for war: Detroit began producing more tanks and less cars; when you went to the movies you saw Movietone newsreel releases instead of ads for popcorn and sodas; American citizens had victory gardens, fuel rationing, and metal collection drives. The war affected everyone in America. If you put this in perspective of a future war in cyberspace, I think the best question is what will be the nation's response to cyber war? Are cyber threats, cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, cyber war purely the province of the military or the entire nation? The ways in which we answer this question will determine our future priorities and funding.
This brings up an important point about current and future warfare. Pretty much everyone understands military conflict for the control of land, so they can decide whether it is justified and offer their support accordingly. The War on Terror is somewhat different. Most Americans don't understand the motives and actions of the people we are fighting against or the people we are trying to protect. I think that this is why most people are disconnected from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't really have enough information to form an opinion, so they can't really find it in themselves to support (or oppose) the war effort in the same way that previous generations did in previous wars.
Is strong civilian support important or necessary to win wars? I don't know, but if it is, cyber-warfare is going to be hard. Nobody will be able to even understand what is going on or why, so they won't be able to get behind it. I don't really know what the public could do to assist in a primarily cyberspace conflict in the same way that the efforts he mentioned benefited a land war. Bandwidth rationing? Donating computer cycles to the military ( a la SETI@Home)? Vigilante cracking? Whatever it is, people won't do it because they won't know what the heck is going on.
our Constitution was adopted in 1787 and has since been amended ("changed") 27 times
He answers 19 intelligent, informed questions in an intelligent, informed manner and then thinks that we don't know what "amended" means and can't figure out how to look it up. I'm not offended, but it is kind of unusual.
Although one of its secrets (its existence) has been exposed, it will still tend toward secrecy by keeping its other secrets secret. Or maybe the only secret it's keeping is that it isn't very good at being secretive.
to do the same in a MacBook Pro takes 40 minutes and chances are it is going back together bent with a couple screws stripped.
And whose fault is that? I guess making your products complex and tedious to repair to drive up the price of upgrades is a legitimate business move, but it certainly isn't good engineering.
By the way, we're talking about upgrades straight out of the factory. I don't know how Apple's assembly line works, but it could be that when they put the HDD in, the computer isn't fully assembled yet, and the install is easier. And surely the difficulty of installing a 250 GB drive in the factory isn't greater than that of installing a 120 GB drive in the factory. If their assembly process makes it otherwise, I can see how they might find it hard to design a straight-forward end-user upgrade process.
They can tax cigarettes heavily because most Americans don't smoke at all. The cigarette taxes don't affect them. But pretty much everyone eats at least a little junk food, so everyone would be affected, and everyone would be angry.
Kahn is Hebrew and is a name most often possessed by Jews. Khan is of mixed origin and is most commonly seen in Indians. Some of those people could accurately be described as brown skinned, but neither Israel nor India is widely known for terrorism, whatever you personally may think about the policies of those countries.
Also, he hasn't been sentenced yet. Legal proceedings have barely begun, as far as I can tell.
Well, he would be significantly more villainous than he is now, and if he wins the election, that would make him pretty super.
One time on my networking class (branded by Cisco), one guy was being generally mischievous, and the teacher told him to stop. A little later, he pulled some Cat-5 off the spool and started swinging it around the room. The teacher grabbed him and made him write "I will not swing cables in Cisco class" one thousand times on the board. At the time, I thought it was an overreaction on the part of the instructor, but now I know: the cable must have been one of these. It's a shame that kid only ever wrote about five hundred of his thousand. You shouldn't swing $499 cables in Cisco class.
I have Verizon, and I didn't even know they had a news server. I guess they don't bother putting that in the book you get when you sign up that lists all of their services. I use Google Groups for my occasional forays into Usenet. So this event will have no real effect on me. I'll be going off to college in the fall, so I won't even have them that much longer. That notwithstanding, I'm pissed. Both in a "moral outrage" sense because they're suppressing speech that ought to be free and in a "they're taking what's mine" sense because I used to get the whole Internet (public, that is), and now I only get most of it for the same price. Arrrgghh. And they're even doing it so stupidly, blocking one thousand times what they have to, when they don't even really have to do anything. And they were doing so well with not resetting my Bittorrent connections. *Sigh.*
Fill them with contraband media of various types and give them out to your users (and lusers). You could systematize it. If someone goes six months without "breaking" their computer by changing the settings, not liking it, and forgetting how to change them back, that person might get a 4-gig full of random music that you pulled off of Gnutella (or whatever). If a user goes a year without unintentionally creating a security risk, he gets 50 GB of unsorted porn. For the god of a man who has gone his entire career without a trouble ticket and is miraculously using ten-year-old hardware with no failures, you could have a 300 GB drive with all of the best video games, modern and classic.
And for the jackass who wants a new monitor because he changed the display resolution, tries out script-kiddie hacking tutorials on his coworkers, constantly demands faster equipment for him to do nothing with, looks at thumb drives he found in the parking lot, and gives up his password for a candy bar, you could stealthily replace his hard drive with a very small one containing Windows ME.
I am not a military historian, but up until recently, it seems as though waging war against another entity primarily meant taking control of their physical territory on the ground and taking out important resources by bombing or some similar high-impact targeted strike. How will Internet warfare change the basic structure of a military campaign? What would a full-scale war incorporating cyber warfare look like?
Some more specific questions in this vein:
How do you envision cyber warfare being applied to conflicts that are primarily against groups of insurgents (Iraq for instance), as opposed to a war against another nation?
The finest citizen of the United States of America should be president. Failing that (and wow are we failing it), the presidential candidate who most resembles the finest American should be president. Most Americans would agree that the finest American does not represent the views of the average American, because most Americans disagree with the average American for varying reasons, and they disagree even more about what qualifies the finest citizen. But I think almost everyone would agree that whatever makes a person excellent, the president ought to possess it.
I just graduated high school in the US. I don't know about the national trend, but I do know that the difficulty of math exams varied wildly even within my (public) school, which Newsweek tells me is one of the top 900 in the country, for whatever that's worth..
My teacher for AP Calculus BC gave extremely difficult exams. We were almost never allowed to use calculators. The smartest kids in the school (not bragging, just saying) were almost never able to finish his tests in the time allotted. When I took the actual AP exam, I found it relatively easy, as did my classmates. Mostly this is from the tests in class being difficult. I couldn't say whether the AP exam was too easy. Of course, I haven't gotten my score back yet, so take my impression of the exam with a grain of salt.
Another math teacher in my school is famous for the easiness of his classes. I have never taken one, but some of my friends have. One of the courses he teaches is Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry. (The sequence at my school is weird. This course is like the end of Algebra II and the beginning of precalculus with some stats thrown in.) He lets you use the calculator for absolutely everything. I know a kid who aced a trig exam without knowing what sine actually meant. This teacher also gave a kid points back on a test because he messed up the same concept on two different questions. He guarantees everyone in his classes at least a C+ on the final exam. It is routine to get an A in his class by playing AoE while he lectures (we have laptops), telling him you're getting there when he checks to see if you did your homework, and not finishing tests just because you don't feel like it.
The other math teachers that I had in high school (at the regular and honors levels) were somewhere between these two extremes. The calculus teacher gave the same difficulty of tests in Honors Precalculus as he did in AP Calculus BC.
You can "increase your worldwide presence" until the cows come home, but if you never get paid for it, you'll have to find another line of work. Creators must make money somehow, or else most of them won't have a strong incentive to create, and culture will suffer.
IANAL (in Sweden or anywhere else), but I imagine that illegal file sharing in Sweden is illegal because it is in violation of Sweden's copyright laws. If this is the case, then any changes that your friend tries to make to the law should address all of the behavior governed by copyright law, not just file sharing. Part of the reason that file sharing has been such a big issue is that, when it became commonplace, existing legislation was ill-suited to it. So we have vast numbers of people engaging in behavior that is generally considered to be illegal, and companies are suing many people that have, by most accounts, done nothing wrong.
If you favor increased freedom to file share for consumers, then you should advocate increased freedom to share in general. New legislation should anticipate that new technologies will be created. That way, maybe there won't be another big mess twenty years from now.
How do you envision cyber warfare being applied to conflicts that are primarily against groups of insurgents (Iraq for instance), as opposed to a war against another nation?
I am not a military historian, but up until recently, it seems as though waging war against another entity primarily meant taking control of their physical territory on the ground and taking out important resources by bombing or some similar high-impact targeted strike. How will Internet warfare change the basic structure of a military campaign? What would a full-scale war incorporating cyber warfare look like?
Some more specific questions in this vein:
Even if this guy had no close conspirators, which isn't known at this point, it's been reported previously that there were a lot of participants that got riled up by some of the maybe more influential people. This article says that there were a bunch of script kiddies who took their cues from more experienced attackers. Dmitri Galushkevich probably did not mastermind all of that stuff. It's still unclear what exacly went on, as far as I can see.
If there was going to be a cursor on my head's up display, I would be disappointed if it didn't follow my eye movement.
From TFA:
First of all, how is the (potential) suppression of freedom of the press by consolidated media less important or pressing than the race or gender of the owners (or possibly owner) of said media? Secondly, how is changing that within the jurisdiction of the FCC or any government body? The person who buys something should be the person who made a deal with the person selling it, not a person chosen based on their race or gender by some third party.
I don't really know what it means to "implement improvement in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities." Would the FCC send out their own reporters to do a better job than the news station? I don't understand what this guy is talking about?
From TFA:
It was kind of hard to tell from the article, but I think that these are gadgets for your customized search page, not ads to be placed on other websites.
That article doesn't say anything about Storm. From TFA that you posted:
Also from TFA:
There you have it. Many individual, independent script kiddies and skilled hackers in addition to the multiple botnets, not one of which was identified as Storm.