Older people using computers have likely been doing so for much longer - meanwhile, nearly everyone below some certain age makes heavy use of computers and other devices. If the level of competence is the same among both the old and young (probable), then it stands to reason the narrowed down group will perform better. Nothing to do with age - just adoption of technology by increasingly incapable users.
"I'm curious: how much do you think that someone who runs the internet should be paid?"
Nothing. No one should run the internet. But if I HAD to pick someone? It wouldn't be someone making 800k; it would be RMS or someone from the EFF, who, I suspect, would happily do so for free or nearly so.
The vast majority of video games were illegal in the country until about a week ago, and that's just the only thing I remember; I do recall repeatedly hearing crap out of the country that even the zany southern republicans rarely spew here. Or do you think that is simply what Australia wants to be like?
Which is why the people with the most money pay the least taxes proportionately? Which is why the battle cry of the last congressional election was "cut all the programs and spending!" without a word about the, you know, reasonable answer when you already have one of the lowest social expenditures per capita of western countries, raise taxes? Not seeing it. I think you are either A or C on your list, rather than actually someone expressing original thought. At the very least, you're overlooking the fact it works the other way, too: "cut spending!" only affects people other than me, "lower taxes!" will lower my taxes (neither of which are true).
You realize then you'll just get fired for not voting online in the boss' sight? Making voting even potentially visible to others has bad results, end of story.
And you really think the vast majority of clueless people, when put in that situation, are going to do the right thing and vote a blank ballot? No, they will vote randomly. I have no doubt this is a reason why Australia has the most screwed up political system in the English speaking world.
This does bring up an interesting point. Do laws contain chemical nomenclature and/or diagrams to differentiate extremely similar chemicals? How the hell does anyone in office manage to work that out if so?
Doesn't matter. If there is a chance you did something illegal, in the new United States, you are automatically convicted and will serve out the maximum sentence until proven innocent. And if, by some miraculous mechanism you manage to survive that fate, well, they'll just revoke all the "privileges" you have, like driving, internet, education, leaving your house....
False positives stopped being a concern around the time that "reasonable doubt" was replaced by "irrefutable proof of innocence."
Possession of any polyethylene chains between 10 and 30 mers is hereby ILLEGAL! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some microscopy to do on my water bottle...
I'd say more pointless. Sure, you can, but that is a substantial effort probably ultimately not worth it. Again, it also tends to consist of criminal acts against third parties, which is not the best idea in the world.
Considering the machine was already compromised with a botnet, it couldn't be that difficult. Hence I don't really see it that way. Also, it was not an aggressive attack on the intermediate - just getting information irrelevant to the party hacked into. So technically, you can call it hacking, but in the grand scheme of things... not really that high on the list.
That is more advanced, but still, not exactly hacking by my standards (or of the kind TFA implies). It also still has the potential to have been falsified. In the "eye for an eye" reasoning, what if they were smart enough to give you a false IP and you DoS'd it back, only to find out it was owned by some foreign government?
I guess I'm just not sure how the first half of your post relates to the second. What actually happened sounds fairly reasonable and not anything like what TFA is talking about; they didn't try to smoke the attacker, they found them and reported them.
Denial of Service is difficult to defend against, but it is impossible to retaliate against, since it universally uses botnets. It is not "hacking," either. You basically have no recourse of any kind in that situation other than some not-so-useful technical stopgaps to mitigate damage. If you go after people who "attacked you," you're simply further hurting innocent civilians, and deserve to be slapped with the same jail time as the original attackers.
In the case of actual hacking, I have no sympathy. Use proper security and you will not need to worry about it. Unlike denial of service, most commonly exploited security holes are easily fixed - especially if you know they exist (which extortion implies.) Trying to hack back while you have security holes still present in your systems is asking for serious trouble.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, especially when the guy who just got poked in his good eye opens fire on everybody else.
To me, tracking them down (let me guess, you can do a traceroute?) isn't exactly hacking by any means. Finding the person and telling law enforcement is not hacking, it is arguably the antithesis of hacking (not to say you got the right person, but that's aside the point). That makes your later claim that this is somehow like having someone holding a gun to your head, thus justifying "self defense," all the more confusing.
Yes. It takes sense to know that you don't shoot back at a chaingun with a pistol, but most people are too dense to realize they are not l33t h4x themselves capable of greater than whatever was just done to them.
The hackee is going to hack the hacker? How exactly does that work? This would be like Poland invading Germany to get back at them for WWII; it probably will go about as well as the first time. Not to mention, in this case, it is quite likely the actual hacker routed through someone else's compromised computer, thus having zero effect, breaking the law, and only doubly slapping some poor SOB in the middle. Real reasonable, sensible, ethical activities here.
Put the most valuable stuff in first and best packed. You can probably take the computer boxes themselves and just line them up in a big rectangular area and rope it off so they don't move. Monitors (LCD) will be the hardest because they are awkwardly shaped and easily damaged. You can wrap the screens with cardboard and lay them on their sides, interlocking, if shape permits. CRT, if you have those, can just go in like the computers, they're pretty resilient. Can't say anything about the rest, you are probably best off sticking it in boxes.
In general, rope is your friend. You can keep stuff from moving pretty effectively with rope.
I think I read your post as proposing the opposite, that employees should implicitly trust the company, rather than "if you mistrust employees, they will screw with you." The second is much more reasonable.
Generally, when it comes to keeping your own information secure, distrust is good. I don't trust people with my passwords ever. However, the company somehow claiming this is security on their part is dubious, since it in reality does little to actually keep anything secret (all it really does is help you locate a leak, if the leaker was stupid enough to be caught). All it does is breed mistrust and, of course, the more likely result, allow the company to spy on what people are doing more easily. So yes, I agree, then. Spying does not beget security.
When using a computer not owned by you (you might go so far as not used solely by you), you have to assume everything you do on it is being monitored, either by design (snooping/logging) or accidentally (because someone using it ended up getting a keylogger). This should be standard security procedure: if it is not your computer, you have no idea where what you type into it is going.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if I have both windows and linux, and would like to be able to use one card on both, guess which company's 500$ card I WON'T be buying?
"There is no sensible reason why opening up the specs of the video decoding would make it any easier to crack a drm scheme."
I believe a reason that makes no sense is also known as "an excuse."
Older people using computers have likely been doing so for much longer - meanwhile, nearly everyone below some certain age makes heavy use of computers and other devices. If the level of competence is the same among both the old and young (probable), then it stands to reason the narrowed down group will perform better. Nothing to do with age - just adoption of technology by increasingly incapable users.
Well, presumably, they still have some standards, or they would already be frakking each other.
"I'm curious: how much do you think that someone who runs the internet should be paid?"
Nothing. No one should run the internet. But if I HAD to pick someone? It wouldn't be someone making 800k; it would be RMS or someone from the EFF, who, I suspect, would happily do so for free or nearly so.
The vast majority of video games were illegal in the country until about a week ago, and that's just the only thing I remember; I do recall repeatedly hearing crap out of the country that even the zany southern republicans rarely spew here. Or do you think that is simply what Australia wants to be like?
Which is why the people with the most money pay the least taxes proportionately? Which is why the battle cry of the last congressional election was "cut all the programs and spending!" without a word about the, you know, reasonable answer when you already have one of the lowest social expenditures per capita of western countries, raise taxes? Not seeing it. I think you are either A or C on your list, rather than actually someone expressing original thought. At the very least, you're overlooking the fact it works the other way, too: "cut spending!" only affects people other than me, "lower taxes!" will lower my taxes (neither of which are true).
You realize then you'll just get fired for not voting online in the boss' sight? Making voting even potentially visible to others has bad results, end of story.
And you really think the vast majority of clueless people, when put in that situation, are going to do the right thing and vote a blank ballot? No, they will vote randomly. I have no doubt this is a reason why Australia has the most screwed up political system in the English speaking world.
This does bring up an interesting point. Do laws contain chemical nomenclature and/or diagrams to differentiate extremely similar chemicals? How the hell does anyone in office manage to work that out if so?
This topic demands investigation.
Doesn't matter. If there is a chance you did something illegal, in the new United States, you are automatically convicted and will serve out the maximum sentence until proven innocent. And if, by some miraculous mechanism you manage to survive that fate, well, they'll just revoke all the "privileges" you have, like driving, internet, education, leaving your house....
False positives stopped being a concern around the time that "reasonable doubt" was replaced by "irrefutable proof of innocence."
Possession of any polyethylene chains between 10 and 30 mers is hereby ILLEGAL! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some microscopy to do on my water bottle...
I'd say more pointless. Sure, you can, but that is a substantial effort probably ultimately not worth it. Again, it also tends to consist of criminal acts against third parties, which is not the best idea in the world.
Considering the machine was already compromised with a botnet, it couldn't be that difficult. Hence I don't really see it that way. Also, it was not an aggressive attack on the intermediate - just getting information irrelevant to the party hacked into. So technically, you can call it hacking, but in the grand scheme of things... not really that high on the list.
That is more advanced, but still, not exactly hacking by my standards (or of the kind TFA implies). It also still has the potential to have been falsified. In the "eye for an eye" reasoning, what if they were smart enough to give you a false IP and you DoS'd it back, only to find out it was owned by some foreign government?
I guess I'm just not sure how the first half of your post relates to the second. What actually happened sounds fairly reasonable and not anything like what TFA is talking about; they didn't try to smoke the attacker, they found them and reported them.
Denial of Service is difficult to defend against, but it is impossible to retaliate against, since it universally uses botnets. It is not "hacking," either. You basically have no recourse of any kind in that situation other than some not-so-useful technical stopgaps to mitigate damage. If you go after people who "attacked you," you're simply further hurting innocent civilians, and deserve to be slapped with the same jail time as the original attackers.
In the case of actual hacking, I have no sympathy. Use proper security and you will not need to worry about it. Unlike denial of service, most commonly exploited security holes are easily fixed - especially if you know they exist (which extortion implies.) Trying to hack back while you have security holes still present in your systems is asking for serious trouble.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, especially when the guy who just got poked in his good eye opens fire on everybody else.
To me, tracking them down (let me guess, you can do a traceroute?) isn't exactly hacking by any means. Finding the person and telling law enforcement is not hacking, it is arguably the antithesis of hacking (not to say you got the right person, but that's aside the point). That makes your later claim that this is somehow like having someone holding a gun to your head, thus justifying "self defense," all the more confusing.
Yes. It takes sense to know that you don't shoot back at a chaingun with a pistol, but most people are too dense to realize they are not l33t h4x themselves capable of greater than whatever was just done to them.
The hackee is going to hack the hacker? How exactly does that work? This would be like Poland invading Germany to get back at them for WWII; it probably will go about as well as the first time. Not to mention, in this case, it is quite likely the actual hacker routed through someone else's compromised computer, thus having zero effect, breaking the law, and only doubly slapping some poor SOB in the middle. Real reasonable, sensible, ethical activities here.
Become? You must be new here.
Put the most valuable stuff in first and best packed. You can probably take the computer boxes themselves and just line them up in a big rectangular area and rope it off so they don't move. Monitors (LCD) will be the hardest because they are awkwardly shaped and easily damaged. You can wrap the screens with cardboard and lay them on their sides, interlocking, if shape permits. CRT, if you have those, can just go in like the computers, they're pretty resilient. Can't say anything about the rest, you are probably best off sticking it in boxes.
In general, rope is your friend. You can keep stuff from moving pretty effectively with rope.
I think I read your post as proposing the opposite, that employees should implicitly trust the company, rather than "if you mistrust employees, they will screw with you." The second is much more reasonable.
Generally, when it comes to keeping your own information secure, distrust is good. I don't trust people with my passwords ever. However, the company somehow claiming this is security on their part is dubious, since it in reality does little to actually keep anything secret (all it really does is help you locate a leak, if the leaker was stupid enough to be caught). All it does is breed mistrust and, of course, the more likely result, allow the company to spy on what people are doing more easily. So yes, I agree, then. Spying does not beget security.
You haven't QUITE gotten the point of what others were doing, I am afraid. It is supposed to actually be a link, you see...
Then please post your passwords to all your accounts in reply to this message. Otherwise, I don't trust you.
When using a computer not owned by you (you might go so far as not used solely by you), you have to assume everything you do on it is being monitored, either by design (snooping/logging) or accidentally (because someone using it ended up getting a keylogger). This should be standard security procedure: if it is not your computer, you have no idea where what you type into it is going.