1000 years of subjective time is more than suitable to plan and plot any revenge against the ones that put you through that...

"In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulu waits dreaming"

If you make it OK to use drugs and torture against criminal and innocent people (both of which get processed through "corrections", then at the same time you are stating that drugging others against their will and torturing them is not a bad thing to do (else you wouldn't do it)

If those are OK to do now, just imagine how many torturers you just handed releases to, since you want the horrible act they are in prison for to no longer be a crime that is against the law.

I would much prefer people so far gone they are willing to torture others continue to be imprisoned instead of legalizing torture and no longer arresting such people.

I've been asking that same question, but I think Viacom blocked my email addresses by now :{

Gnote doesn't appear to handle images and other binary data, just text.

CherryTree looks pretty close however. The only feature I see lacking is its search.
OneNote can text-search within images for example, not just the textual notes.

The Outlook integration is pretty nice too, but since that won't be in the free version it looks like, that isn't fair to compare.

Why would you think that?

Especially so after I explicitly stated they do pay taxes and would choose to do so given the choice...

Is your argument that the government does not deserve those taxes and they shouldn't be paid, thus the solution is to pay your taxes? Because that makes even less sense!

Strawman, since no one has claimed otherwise.

We detect the activity around and affected by the blackhole, which is not at all inside of it by any definition.

As others have mentioned, it may not be single use after all...
But even assuming it was, once the economic weapon has been used, doesn't that still leave conventional warfare and the ICBMs that weren't used?

Assuming the heirs in question weren't butchered by a mob along with their billionaire parents and the entire estate burnt down... Yes, the government earned it.

These heirs wouldn't have ANY money, nor their parents, if it wasn't for the government. If they had anything of value, they would likely have been killed and the valuables stolen if not for the government.

Not to mention they probably would have died during birth if not for the hospitals and medicine made possible by a stable economy, roads to get them to said hospital, and police to protect their safety and possessions.

If they want to claim they owe the government nothing, they also lose the right to complain when the rest of us murder them and take their stuff. I seriously doubt they really would go with that option if given the choice.

Either defend yourself 100%, or stop complaining and pay up for the protection offered.

That can be a risk yes, but is easily defeated.

If the files I upload are intended to be distributed and shared, say software I write or videos I publish or whatnot, then that profiling is only a good thing since I want to rise in the search results as the source and creator.

If the files are a backup of personal/company data, stuff not to be shared anyway, I'll be uploading an encrypted container.
Yes, my profile will have a single entry stating I use encryption (which I don't know how to avoid) but my actual data isn't profiled since they can't read it.

True, that is always a risk when you go 3rd party and don't do it "in house".

But that shouldn't be TOO much of a problem, especially for the backup situation. By definition backups are a copy, and by best practices you shouldn't ever have only one copy but many. Losing one may be an inconvenience in replacing it, but only a fool would delete their originals after uploading a backup.
(Not to say there aren't fools out there who do exactly that - only to say this is the fools fault, not the hosting provider)

For the distribution situation, it is adamantly a much larger inconvenience and to many more people.
Hopefully a person operating this way has their own domain name and website, and can be the authoritative source for where to download the files.
Then it's just time being spent to upload everything to a new host to distribute and updating the links that point to them.

Yes users wanting to download will be upset, but that's mainly a result of you not having redundancy in place.
I realize redundancy isn't always an option for many reasons, and am not attempting to place blame. (If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.)
But this is the case with most everything online, be it file hosting, web hosting, backup services, ISPs/uplinks using BGP vs a single DSL/cable provider, etc.
I don't see that as a fault with the 3rd party really, just an unfortunate truth to the nature of what we do.

Agreed! No one is perfect, and expecting otherwise can only bite you.
But for most, especially individuals and hobbyists but small companies too, Google or Amazons (or even Microsofts) admins are going to have more time and people on hand to take care of it.

It's always a cost/benefit to figure out.

Perhaps. I think this one is going to boil down to personal preference.
There is a certain extent I do trust Google, and a line I wouldn't trust them past. I suspect my line is a bit closer to "trust" than your line is ;}

But assuming we are both knowledgeable about what Google does, what their business modal is, and what specific thing we will be using them for - I don't think there is much either of us can say to move that line for the other much, and that doesn't make either of us wrong.

According to the statements made which my comment replied to, no actually you can't.

Parent specifically said the solution was one single 4 TB hard drive.
You can't do a RAID with one disk.
You can have multiple copies on that one disk, but that won't help against most failure modes.

Parent specifically argued against all the options that would let you protect a single consumer drive from failure, and didn't even account for other failures such as bitrot checksums, parity to fix said bitrot, or user error (ie deleting something on accident)

Strongly agreed there too.

Personally I do not backup any of my movies. I keep my original DVDs and whatnot, and yes it would suck to re-rip everything and sort it nicely again, but it can be done.
My music ended up backed up due to wanting it at multiple locations, but I didn't intend on that originally.
My vacation photo situation sounds identical to yours too. If 5 US states disappear over night including the one I live in, fallout has taught me photos will not be of help in fighting off the raiders and mutants ;P

But - I do have a ~250 MB encrypted volume I DO backup everywhere I can.
It contains my tax paper work, scans of important documents I need to keep for some time, my own unencrypted private certificate authority cert, etc.

I also have a smaller encrypted volume I store with family and friends that contains my password basis and schemes, plus some of the more important ones along with my rotation schedule and whatnot.
My will contains this volumes password and a list of which family members and friends have a copy, intended to be available to my heir once I pass on.
The more help for her in this case the better, since I won't be around to ask!

While these days I run a fleet of my own servers to host files I distribute, I too started out with free hosting online (zomg ftp.netcom.com and geocities!) then moved up to paid hosting (usually of the web hosting form) before finally moving to colo servers and now adding VPSes.

Professionally on the other hand, I do have a metric crapton of data that does need to be backed up. I have ~250 employees here I have to protect against themselves (Be it a boot drive image to be restored after an infection, or files on the storage server to be placed back after being overwritten incorrectly)

But I will fully admit at work I keep everything in-house. They provide much more funds for that than I am willing to spend for myself at home, so thankfully this isn't an issue ;}

In the end it all boils down to the specific case at hand, what concerns one has, and which options are easiest to address those concerns.

But none of that was mentioned in my previous reply, since that was on a pure technical level between a single consumer drive on one PC, and enterprise grade hardware setup by best practices, administrated by competent people.
Hopefully it is clear however that even the political side of the argument isn't as black and white either.

And a 74 GB SAS drive is $300, which won't fall over and puke on itself the second a second user tries to perform a read operation on it, nor will die in zero to a few years.
That is only $4 per GB, and provides significantly higher speeds, bandwidth, and lifetime over your option.

Not to mention, I would rather pay Google $0.02 per GB for the service of "storing my data", compared to paying you anything for the service of "oops, all your data was lost because this crappy consumer level drive failed"

What does the average tech support flow chart reading monkey have to do with automated CPE monitoring setup by the network engineers?

Just to clarify, it is rate limited in the same way your existing connection is (though likely more so)

Docsis 3 configured with 4096 QAM can push 10 gbps down and 1 gbps up the coax.
Out of that, your service will be allocated some bandwidth over a number of channels, depending on what the ISP feels like offering and how much you are paying them. In the US, lets say you get a 20mbps down package (For our UK friends, pretend it's 100mbps down) - and that is your rate limit.

Now they can allocate a new channel for the other virtual circuit. This is equivilent to having two people in your house each subscribing to the same cable ISP and having their own cable modem on the wire.
Short of massive bandwidth packages requiring many channels, both modems can live and operate quite happily on the same coax, each tuned to a different channel. (Only if multiple channels are bonded to give more bandwidth are dedicated coax runs involved)

In this case, there is a channel your modem uses for your own service, capped at whatever you pay for.
There is a seperate channel the modem also tunes to and sends to the wifi access point built in, that other subscribers can login to.
This unrelated channel will also be capped, and likely much lower than your own service.
That channel is bound to a virtual circuit that isn't under your name, and shows as a dialup pool or the like, where radius logs can link usernames and login times with DHCP logs and the IP(s) being used by whom.

In both cases, a metric crapton of unused and unallocated bandwidth over the coax is sitting there idle. Instead of 10000-20 mbps unused, there will be something like 10000-20-5 (or whatever they end up allocating the wifi)
The bottle necks are further up stream within the ISP network (typically at their edge routers, which link them to other networks) - no longer at the last mile.

In fact the only difference between two virtual circuits terminating in the same modem (one going to ethernet and wifi radio 1 for you, the other going to wifi radio 2 for others) is the hardware being used to do it.
Accounting, bandwidth, and cost wise there is no difference between this setup, and both you and the person next door subscribing to the same ISP.

As far as the network itself goes, this is already a well known and quite solved problem, and has been going on for decades.

The only real concern is the piece of hardware servicing these two circuits in the same software stack. Any security flaws that would let one circuit route to another in any way differently than if they were separate routers would be a "very bad thing"(tm)

Right now I can only reach you over the network by that ethernet jack in the cable modem, that your firewall names "the outside". Any packets I send must abide by your firewall rules to make it through.
A flaw in the router might possibly allow routing between wifi radio 2 and ethernet/wifi radio 1 in a different way than from coax to ethernet/wifi radio 1 and coax to wifi radio 2.

Imagine iptables setup on a machine with 3 ethernet jacks. #1 is ISP, #2 is you, and #3 is the roommate. Packets from #3 to #2 should NOT flow if they wouldn't also be able to go from #1 to #2, or from #1 to #3 even.

Docsis even provides security features where all the cable modems on the same coax can only communicate with the CMTS. You and the person next door, or even the room mate in the same house, willingly communicating over the network will route packets from you out to the cable co and back to the same house to the room mate. Replies take the same long path back. Each cable modem encrypts using unique keys.

Having two such encryption channels in the same cable modem is part of the 3.1 spec at least, so this is more like using an existing feature instead of inventing a brand new home grown solution out of a linux box with multiple network adapters.
(Which I'm not knocking! But sometimes carrier grade router gear is the better bet, and with the public masses involved this would be one of those times)

Some also question the competence of the IT staff comcast chooses to retain, and question if they are capable of realizing such a problem exists as well as can apply the industry standard "fix" defined in the 80s (ie correct filtering rules on the correct interfaces)

There are a number of ways to do this setup properly and securely. But this is comcast here, not the network professionals.

Except your argument has been proven false - many eyes DID catch the bug!

You are posting to an article plainly stating the bug exists, while your post claims such an article doesn't and can't exist because this very bug you are commenting on hasn't and can't be found.

You state this falsehood while at the same time argue the only process that "works" is one where not only would this bug have been around for a decade but still to this day would only be known to the black hat hackers who will use it for ill, depriving the software users (us) of being allowed to even know there is a problem under threat of lawsuits.

I have to seriously question your motives for such a desire and why you don't want people to be secure...

No no no, scientifically his name must be Carl! Did no one teach you your A B C's? ;}

Every IDE drive made since the 90s has a multicore processor on it that is already more powerful than most hobbiest computers sold as actual computers just the decade before.

The translation between an address on disk to read or store a byte has not matched a static physical location since MFM drives, which most people these days have never seen or heard of.

Some brilliant hackers are only just recently reverse engineering these controllers, learning to run code directly on them.

This guy even has a Linux kernel running on a 2tb Western Digital HD controller chip, and reprogrammed it to silently watch for a certain string to be written by the PC and then return additional data.

His idea was to create a program that could be triggered remotely by getting said string to be written to disk, say by utilizing a webserver log file which puts even invalid requests into an error log.

That drive has a 150mhz 3 core ARM processor, which has a 32 bit memory map, direct access to the sata bus and direct access to the raw storage.
By pausing the HD CPU, memory locations can be changed and the currently running program modified, then the CPU can be unpaused and the code continues to run.

Basically anything you can do from the sATA interface is pretty garenteed not to be able to touch or even be aware of specific locations on the platters where data is stored.