No you are just reading it wrong.

So if I have a bit under a liter of water, I have "100 times less than 10 mL" because I know it is less than 10 mL that I have 100 of. Makes perfect sense to me. So what they are saying is, the device Stephen Hawking uses costs less than 1/100th the cost of this, or a bit under 80 cents.

I had no idea Stephen Hawking's devices were so cheap! Thats amazing, I am shocked this was even created now!

Its like waves on the ocean man, they go in, they go out, never a missed communication but, nobody knows how it works.

> 1. It is respecting veterans. They do not decide which wars are just and which are not the voters and elected
> officials do.

Yes they do. They decided to join, they decided to follow orders. Sorry, I don't believe anyone has the right to ceede is own moral reasoning to others. They are equally guilty as the people who gave the orders, the elected officials and "voters" (for as much as their opinion matters when their opinion is just picking between the offerings put before them by the colluding parties)

They decided when they joined, they decided when they got up in the morning and didn't refuse to go fight. No exceptions.

That is, unless its a rule that our leaders want to be bound by. Ask them about ending marijuana prohibition and, if you manage to get past everything else, they will happily fall back on "but the treaties we have at the UN wont let us do that, so see, we can't".

Its nice to be able to be selective in what rules apply to you and what ones don't, its almost like not having rules at all, except better, because you still get to use them as an excuse when you don't want to do something.

Heh I play dwarf fortress mostly, Clearly the way forward involves a lever and a pressure plate at each "crosswalk", and by "crosswalk", of course, I mean "retractable drawbridge over a spike pit". Pedestrian stops and pulls the lever first, no retraction.... step on pressure plate first and the bridge retracts.

Will likely need some redesign of the sewer system to help actuate the mechanism properly..... but its totally worth it.

A better way is to remove all the current crosswalks from intersections and randomly move them between 0-10 feet down the road. That way a pedestrian needs to look before walking out. Should clean up the problem quite quickly from what I can tell.

Of course, that assumes you can get drivers to stop yeilding to pedestrians that are still so far from the road that they could trip and fall with both arms stretched above their head and still not touch the road with their fingertips.

sounds reasonable to me. Hell, in the first manned moon landing the landing zone was determined to be too rocky (as in littered with large boulders) and so the crew took manual control; counting off altitude as they descended. Compared to this thing, the moon may as well be smooth as a bowling ball.

It almost challenges your notion of what a "slope" is since it is really defined by the perpendicularity of the surface with respect to the force of gravity. At least the Apollo guys could just look down at the surface and approximate that gravity is pulling them down into it.

> try to argue with the phone guys who get paid to keep you.

Not only this, but they LIE to keep you as well.

They talked my mother into phone service, they send the modem, we swap it out, it steals the public IP address which breaks my personal VPN setup (since the home box is the one I connect to). So we send it back, cancel the new service, and keep the old box. Fine.

A year later they try again, she brings the phone to me, I tell them it doesn't work and why, they say "oh thats fine, you can keep using the old modem and we can send a new one just for the phone.

She gets her package, sets it up, we lose network. Call them up....no, activating the phone turns off the old one. Eventually, after some time talking with tech support, they got permission to turn out old modem back on and do what sales promised, but, it most certainly was not what they were expecting.

However, both of those agreements explicitly spell out that the person promising to produce owes the investor. You agreed to it, they agreed to it. Both agreements are in agreement that they owe you. What more do you need from kickstarter? You know who owes you, and who is liable to pay you, they agreed to it just like you did. Kickstarter did their part in making sure you both agreed to it.

These people call my mother incessently. Every other day or so I hear her yelling at her phone "you are not really with windows, windows doesn't call" (yes they say they are calling "from windows" lol).

I just saw this and ran down to show her, not so much for the exploit but the idea of playing mickey the dunce and keeping them on the phone for as long as possible. Lol she has a true talent for annoying tech support. Hell I once got a call from a guy at the help desk "I just got off the phone with your mother" "really?" "yah down in radiology right? I was on the phone for 45 minutes and had to send a technition out because I couldn't get her to plug the ethernet cable back into the wall" "now, she told you she is blind right?" "No she....what the fuck!"

Seriously.... I think I just punished them good suggesting she keep a log of how long she can keep them on the phone for.

> probably until the kingdom gets destroyed even

Well as long as the kingdom exists, there will be a king who will want such a memorial for himself and will want to not be the one to set the precedent of allowing the king's burial chambers being desecrated. So this is to be expected, at the very least.

Very true but I don't see that implication here. I agree that its possible someone could misinterpret it that way but it doesn't appear that there is any attempt to mislead people here, either by the authors or the summarizers. It all reads pretty clearly to me, and pretty clearly doesn't address small scale/targeted use that would be neigh impossible to detect.

Now if I was a betting man, and you asked me, do I think the NSA might refer to this result in attempts to deflect criticism, I would bet that they will. So far they have shown to be decently expert at deflection and misdirection when it comes to making public statements; and very fond of making ever so slightly overqualified statements about what they are NOT doing.

This is true but, it also is a case where what works in one place may or may not work the same (or be implemented similarly) elsewhere. I have seen these exact same lanes turn into a nightmare. Not because they put traffic in the way but because they retained the left and right lanes, and just occasionally, turn the left lane into a turn only lane....so everyone who was traveling in that lane suddenly has to move over.....and few things slow drivers down like a lane merge.

> So my question is, without having man in the middled all the sessions, or had the decryption keys.
> How are these researchers making this statement?

How do you know they didn't? Notice the keywords "large-scale". Their detector is likely some sort of honeypot in fact, from the article:

To detect Heartbleed scanning, we extended the Broâ(TM)s SSL/TLS
analyzer to recognize Heartbeat messages [25,57]. Note that this
approach parses the full TLS protocol data stream, including the
TLS record layer which remains unencrypted throughout the ses-
sion, and thus achieves an accuracy significantly better than that
provided by simple byte pattern matching. We have released our
Bro modifications along with our detection script via the Bro git
repository

So I would assume they had keys and possibly were using a honeypot....a few paragraphs below that, they talk about getting full traces from a honeypot.

Right in the summary: "This provides strong evidence that at least for those time periods, no attacker with prior knowledge of Heartbleed conducted widespread scanning looking for vulnerable servers. "

So you are correct about what it doesn't prove, but, its also not really claimed to prove that either. Not even a little bit. What this does, is suggest strongly (not prove) that no criminal gangs (yes, yes, the NSA) were aware of it, or if they were, were not aware of it long enough to exploit it meaningfully.

If the vulnerability were available, if even one person bought it, they would have to use it. What I mean is, if you know this vulnerability can be bought (because you bought it) you know that its out there and its only a matter of time before it gets noticed and fixed.

The only person who has any reason to not use it or use it in a discriminating fashion, is someone who discovered it independently and wants to get maximum use out of it. Someone like the NSA.

This, in no way, proves that nobody knew about it. What I think it does prove is, whoever may have known about it, wasn't selling it and wasn't a memeber of one of the for-profit gangs. That is all.