Seems like if they want a feature like this to support manufacturing that it should be something that is only accessible on one *internal* (non-ISP facing) Ethernet port and only within a certain amount of time since bootup.
Then they should deactivate the functional test feature, as soon as the admin password is changed from the default.
Really? How many people knew about heartbleed 3 weeks ago?
I didn't know about it 3 weeks ago. But none of my Linux SSL-enabled servers were affected, either.
It did help that most daemons were linked against libNSS. Many of the Apache installs were using mod_nss for SSL instead of mod_ssl, and.... most of the other servers were CentOS5 with openssl, but not a buggy version.
Wrong. Don't pass go don't collect $200. Sure solar activity follows an 11 year cycle. But that simply means that the probability changes over that 11 years.. a bit. But not much.
Sounds like you're just bullshitting your way through this.
The de Vries solar cycle is approximately 205 years. Your argument that relies on statistical independence and a reasonably uniform probability distribution does not hold any water.
Also, trying to rely on security through obscurity would be extremely dumb. The moment an LEA got the address the whole game would be up.
Yes.... once their operation gets big or important enough... they are basically guaranteed that the feds will find out.
Hell... the NSA are probably already surveilling any/all high traffic Tor nodes to locate IP addresses associated with "important" or "popular" nodes in the network, then surveil those, until they have mapped the topology of the Tor network; then sharing pertinent info with the FBI when detected that some nodes might be running a service such as Silk Road or Illegal Goods search.
A Tor hidden service does not work against well-funded adversaries who can make efforts to "trace the traffic"
Ultimately point A has to receive some bits and Point B has to receive and send a lot of bits, or the pairs of endpoints don't communicate.
Which effectively kills the FAA's regulations that said commercial drone use in the US was illegal.
No it doesn't. The ruling affects the case at hand only -- not precedent-setting, and the matter is still under dispute with the FAA appealing.
It is quite possible the FAA could kill this company and apply some severe penalties.
I imagine they at least run it through a filter before it hits the pipes.
I believe so. The water needs to be enclosed before they can test that the water is in compliant with state and federal standards: I am pretty sure, they must be doing something else... or the people in the area are already at risk (Not from Urine, from lax water safety standards).
The reservoir is "open" and accessible to animals such as birds who can deposit feces containing pathogens such as cryptosporidium: which form oocysts (spores) that can pass through a number of types of filters and survive in high-chlorine (and otherwise chemically treated) waters.
Therefore... they need to either be doing UV or ozone treatment after pulling water from the reservoir, or using a membrane/diatomaceous earth/slow sand filter to successfully filter out most crypto s..
I wonder if this incident shouldn't raise alarm bells, that the post-reservoir treatment is ineffective, and members of the public might be endangered if an infected bird shits in the lake!
Otherwise it would be kinda useless, since to use it you would have to have contact with other users which is risky.
Because it's incredibly easy to distribute physical contraband without making contact with your users, or risking revealing your identity or your user's identity: in case either buyer or seller is actually a LEO or hired informant?
Actually, Portland doesnt treat its water after this resivour. This doesnt imply that I agree with their decision.
In other words... the water already has enough chemicals in it that nothing will grow.
They still gotta do something to keep the turbidity down, from dirty in the reservoir... however....
If the chance of it happening is
No. That's not true. That requires making an unwarranted assumption of independence. You are assuming that the passage of time is independent w.r.t. the solar activity.
You are essentially assuming is true that is something already known to be totally false.
Just because you haven't won lotto for the last 100 years does not make you more likely to win lotto this week because your "overdue".
A carrington event is not a lottery win.
Astrological events are cyclical.
There is not a probability that this event will happen selected by random chance. It's essentially certainty that this event will happen.
The real hidden service URL probably just changed.
The site advert'd in the Slashdot article is probably itself a "Sting" operation to tag members of the public for the purpose
of building a blacklist for the
This could save billions of people. And it's one kind of threat -- that in principle: we should be able to see coming, if we are just looking
We could also do well to have solar flare early warning and harden the power grid against the next Carrington event; which is overdue and expected every couple hundred years.
However.... what happens when there is an Asteroid that will threaten earth... in between the time the telescope is developed, but before the asteroid diversion tech is developed?
you don't "help" a company or technology by buying their stock since the said stock is owned by some other dude and the sale does not bring a single more dollar to the company
This is not quite true. Most companies dilute their stock regularly, to compensate management and founders with stock or option grants.
The collection of buyers of those shares set the price for the stock -- which is ultimately being used to provide the company's equity financing.
Now it's true if you bought a share of stock for $1000.... well it's not $1000 that goes directly or indirectly to the company.
But you are trading places with someone who ultimately up the chain bought into their offering.
In the event the buying volume ran out... the stock price could easily fall by a few %. Even a $0.01 price decrease is significant.
So it's not that you aren' "giving" to the company --- it's just that the relative proportions of what you are giving are probably very very small, for a multi-billion$$ company.
What is very disappointing is the heavyhanded regulators have blocked this kind of market in the US, the supposed "land of the free"? What happened to our economic freedom??
Indeed. If you stand to lose financially -- in case the technology DOES succeed, then you could make a Bet that it will succeed, in order to offset your losses.
If the technology succeeds, you win your bet, AND your winnings offset the financial harm. If the technology doesn't succeed, then you lose your bet, BUT you are not financially harmed.
Investing would help finance its success, which you definitely don't want.
Instead... in the US you are banned from placing the bet.
So you can't protect yourself --- except from a narrow band of risks by purchasing insurance
"Naah...How about we build a huge floating light water reactor out in the ocean?"
So say the government and the regulators who only recognize the existence of one kind of reactor operation.
So say the companies that produce power from coal, whose vitality would be threatened by a cheaper abundant power source. So say the companies heavily fested in uranium-fed solid-fuel water-cooled reactors.... and manufacturers that also are in the business of manufacturing the uranium fuels for traditional nuclear reactors.
What the market is essentially saying is they don't agree with Bloomberg analyst's or others' evaluation of the value of these other companies. The natural conclusion is the market says THE ANALYSTS ARE WRONG in their estimates of the worth of Yahoo Japan/Alibaba.
It is the analysts, not the public that assume it is the US portion of Yahoo's operations that are being valued at $0.
By the way.... just because some Alibaba stock or some Yahoo Japan stock is available on other exchanges at a certain price; does not mean the entire company is valued at the current marginal price of stock trades. That is a form of extrapolation which is subject to large errors. The market valuation of Yahoo US based on price of individual shares is also an extrapolation.
One should not assume that all the outstanding shares in Yahoo are available for the same price, to an investor possessing current marginal trading price in $ per share times number of shares, in cash.
That doesn't really tell you what the market will value the company at, perhaps as a rough estimate with errors between 10x and 100x.
It is just the analyst/reporter's underhanded way of saying -- since we're infallible about the proper valuation of these quickly growing portions, and nobody else could possibly ever see any differently ----- any difference in US stock price must be attributed to negative value from the slower growing portion of the business.
Maybe it's just that their other non-US operations are being assigned a discount, for various reasons, below what the analyst wants to value them at.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
