My first thought is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is behind this. Wouldn't be the first time they've corrupted the Indian government. Anyone remember not that long ago when they were going to allow their indigenous pharmaceutical companies to start manufacturing and selling drugs to their massive population for cost, before Bill swept in with funding to pay for drugs for the upper and middle classes in exchange for leaving the law as it was? It was covered here on Slashdot.
Because you're breaking the rules and it's admin's job to ensure that people don't break the rules, or the network itself. It appears that you have the problem with the rules and with basic logic - you think that admins make the rules.
They don't. They merely enforce them. If you don't like the rules "sticking it to the admin" is the worst choice by far. You will get slammed by the pissed off admin who has seen a dosen of people like you and really doesn't want to deal with the bothersome smartass, and then you'll get slammed by the people who actually made the rules for actively attempting to circumvent the rules.
The right approach would be to actually press the people on the top to change the rules and not become the enemy of the system.
I don't think there is an intelligent, focused process at work behind evolution.
Idk all the obstacles to robots, but considering the story weeks ago on artificial muscles being built from fishing line and activated by heat in a way that was never really considered before for that application... I think technology can overcome this.
Tech cannot overcome everything (fundamental laws of physics) or provide quick fixes... but if nature can build a human or cat or whatever really cheap, I don't see why we can't do so artificially eventually.
I don't buy into the iRobot future - a bunch of crappy to mediocre (and very limited tools) integrated with their robot to provide a middling experience for a small subset of tasks. I can't see how we won't eventually transistion to a central unit like a walking robot using cheap or dedicated tools for the job.
It will take decades, but there's a lot of demand that some dedicated experimenters will try to supply.
They say they need a court order. How do we know they havn't just issued some secret National Security Letter or FISA warrant...
True, but at least they have to ask for the data now. Before they could just go digging through it.
I hate the notion that one would need a chief financial officer, a controller, inside auditors, outside auditors, a board of directors, an audit committee, and a compliance officer. Having any of those wastes would not have made any difference whatsoever to the current outcome of bitcoin. I'm so proud of those guys for not going that route.
We're talking about a $1B/yr operation. Sure, if it were smaller you could probably get by with only a few of those.
My linux distro has a board of directors, and it only does maybe $10k/yr in financials. Heck, so does the local RC airplane club, and I doubt they own much in the way of tangible property at all.
Sure, simply paying people doesn't make your bank secure. If they do their jobs it certainly helps though.
The way it works is that nobody does business with a real bank if they don't have external auditors (which effectively includes government regulators, even though they're usually not counted as auditors). The various internal positions are then required to get all the work done needed to satisfy them.
A lot of it is about division of responsibility so that one person can't just dip into the account and wire themselves $100M. Separating your front-end and back-end software is just sane security practice. You don't stick all your validation and business logic on a web-server that anybody can pwn.
If they only had 2-3 transactions a minute, wouldn't it be easy to see where, when and how transactions went wrong?
That's basically traceable by a human.
Only if they were recorded. The bitcoin side is certainly recorded in the block chain (though that is a lot of transactions to look at). The problem is the corresponding currency side of the transactions isn't recorded anywhere.
For example, these are examples of legitimate transactions:
You give me 1 bitcoin, I send you a bank transfer of $600.
You transfer $600 to me, I deposit 1 bitcoin in the account number you give me.
These are illegitimate transactions:
You give me 1 bitcoin, I send myself a bank transfer of $600.
You transfer $600 to me, I deposit 1 bitcoin in an account I control.
If you look at the block chain all you see in all 4 cases is one bitcoin changing account numbers. You need all the other context to understand what is going on.
A company doing a billion a year in transactions without a general ledger is INSANE. Small businesses with two employees should have them. A general ledger is just a fancy name for a checkbook, usually with a bit more metadata (though even just running the equivalent of Quicken will get you something).
Also this would be a real problem if BTC was actually used like a major currency and not just played with by speculators as the number of transactions would be orders of magnitude higher, and thus so would the growth.
I think this is a real problem that needs a solution if BTC is ever going to take off. I too was shocked the first time I installed a bitcoin client and saw just how much space it needed to store the block chain. It wasn't the end of the world on my system, though if this were a laptop with an SSD it might cause concerns.
However, the transaction volume for bitcoin is minuscule compared to real-world currencies. If every time anybody anywhere bought a can of soda there were a record in the database, it would grow at astonishing speed. Simply transmitting the most recent transactions might take up a considerable amount of bandwidth. Transaction fees would probably rise to cover this cost as miners would now need a lot more bandwidth to operate. Oh, and transaction fees are only recouped by miners, so a model where all bitcoin clients incur a substantial bandwidth cost might fail (nobody would want to run a client unless they were a miner, and miners are only rewarded in proportion to their computation spend, so simply doing casual mining on your client won't help much).
And uni network admin who sits in all the same chat rooms, had the hole plugged within hours of it becoming public. What you think admins are ephermal "great evil"? Most of them are young people who are in the circles.
Some dude flying solo? Sure, will get through. Trying to get everyone to do it so you get lost in the masses? Hole plugged in hours.
Well, we do not require transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want to get abortions.
You also make it virtually impossible for the average citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense, an activity that's allowed with very few questions in 43 of the 50 States. You can't even legally carry pepper spray in MA without a license, something that I'm pretty sure is allowed without a license in every other State in the Union.
Thanks, but no thanks. Plenty of States to choose from that don't regulate self-defense or abortion.
I got four letters for you:J-U-R-Y
I got some letters for you, too: Voir dire. This is the process wherein lawyers weed out all your peers in favor of compliant idiots. That's not what it's supposed to do, of course, but that's how it's used. It's then almost always followed by admonishment by the judge to the effect that the jury has to apply the law as written, with nothing at all about the jury's actual duty to evaluate the law -- in fact, if that's brought up, likely you'll have a mistrial.
If you go to court in the US, you can pretty much look forward to success in ratio with the money you spend on your lawyer, and how well your lawyer manages to pass that largesse along to the judge. And too bad if the judge thinks public opinion means more than your money.
I have no idea to this day if Simpson did it or not
Windows 7 was the first version of Windows I actually enjoyed using since Windows 2000. Microsoft lost me when they came out with Windows XP and I switched to Linux. I would never have considered going back to Microsoft, but then Gnome and Unity both tried to force their own vision of Metro on me. I used Windows 7 in the office, and was actually ready to buy a new computer and go back to Windows. But, when I showed up with my money, there were no Windows 7 computers to be had, and I needed a laptop, so I've got Windows 8.
I hate it so much. Every time I click a file and it opens a metro app and obscures the entire screen, I grind my teeth and swear.
But there's just nothing else I could install that has any real critical mass of users that wouldn't suck just as badly.
The technology that used to empower me have been fucked up at every turn by the influence of the advertising and entertainment industries. Sometimes I just want to abandon IT and go be a farmer.
The right way to do mobile computing is glasses and a glove that detects subtle hand gestures. Touch screens covered in fingerprints with buttons you can't distinguish by feel are not an optimal way to do ANYTHING.
When is this stupid fad going to end?
Sure, maybe you could try to get it to return to some other valid set of code and subvert that
That's exactly what's done. Get it to return to other pieces of code in the application that happen to do what your malicious code wants done.
Certainly agree that no-exec protection isn't going to help at all with that. However, it is a big limit on your attack surface.
Then again, maybe not. I imagine you could point the return address at glibc (something like system()), and arrange for the stack to look like a proper function call after the RET is executed. My ASM is a bit foggy these days, but I'm pretty sure you could do that if the parameters are passed on the stack (to be honestly I'm not sure what the C conventions are these days - if they pass stuff in the registers you'd have no control over that).
Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground.
I don't have a problem with that, but there needs to be reason applied. If a fully-fueled 777 carrying cargo crashes that could destroy the better part of a small town. If a quad-copter crashes maybe somebody might need some stitches. They simply shouldn't be regulated in the same way.
You can be injured by a bicycle, and yet we don't regulate those at all (beyond basic tort law). There just isn't that much potential for permanent injury where bikes are concerned.
You could set a threshold based on maximum kinetic energy of the aircraft (even in a vertical dive there is a limit for any design), or just use weight or thrust. Or you could just wait and see how things develop - heavy/fast drones aren't exactly cheap so people flying them aren't going to be looking to have them crash. Sometimes reactive regulation is better - that's why amatuer RC aircraft are basically entirely unregulated - there are a few guidelines but nothing in the CFRs.
My gripe isn't really with the concept of regulation, but rather with just how ham-fisted the FAA seems to be with just about everything.