I am sick of seeing these 'one simple|weird trick' spams everywhere
"it only creates problems with RnD recovery"
Could you clarify what you meant by this?
Could you clarify what you meant by this?
How about I come by your home and leave a brick on the floor, is it really so hard to just put it in the trash if you don't want it? The point is, it is a theft of your time and effort.
Except for exploits, including the one in the article, which use Flash embedded in Word and other documents sent by email. The HTTP browser isn't the only application which can use Flash content.
They were reverse engineering software. I didn't see anything in here about cracking AV vendor networks or anything like that. I'm sure there are plenty of other people trying to reverse engineer software. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say this is within the security agency's baliwick? I didn't see anything about misusing whatever they found. Very interesting though that domestic producers were not listed. Maybe because they didn't need a warrant to do the reverse engineering, or as suggested by others they might already be compromised.
Are attacks involving armored vehicles more common in the US than in other developed nations? I see no evidence for that.
Yes, it would have been clearer if I said "..will prevent any single future attack?" I thought my further clarification in the post made this distinction clear though. My point was that blaming the tool is pointless when there are many other tools. Since your examples involve stopping the actor they are all irrelevant.
A pretty typical response. Focus on some trivial or unimportant aspect of a bad event, rather than face the fact that little can be done. Does anyone really believe that "doing something" about armored cars is going to prevent future attacks? The attacks will just take a different form. It is like saying "hammers raise eyebrows after person is attacked with a hammer" The least important and and least valuable aspect of that description is the hammer.
Perhaps they could reveal to the placebo watcher that it wasn't a real cat.
Sure the returns are high, just like they are on cocaine smuggling. But what is the risk?
Sarcasm, I know. But this claim came from the UK government. DO they have an expression like 'Uncle Sam' over there?
This page is in English, not Dutch. Hence, it is a canal.
MojoKid writes: A fresh alleged leak of next AMD Fiji graphics info has just hit the web and there's an abundance of supposedly confirmed specifications for what will be AMD's most powerful graphics card to date. Fiji will initially be available in both Pro and XT variants with the Fiji Pro dubbed "Fury" and Fiji XT being dubbed "Fury X." The garden variety Fury touts single-precision floating point (SPFP) performance of 7.2 TFLOPS compared to 5.6 TFLOPS for a bone stock Radeon R9 290X. That's a roughly 29-percent performance improvement. The Fury X with its 4096 stream processors, 64 compute units, and 256 texture mapping units manages to deliver 8.6 TFLOPS, or a 54-percent increase over a Radeon R9 290X. The star of the show, however, will be AMD's High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) interface. Unlike traditional GDDR5 memory, HBM is stacked vertically, decreasing the PCB footprint required. It's also integrated directly into the same package as the GPU/SoC, leading to further efficiencies, reduced latency and a blistering 100GB/sec of bandwidth per stack (4 stacks per card). On average HBM is said to deliver three times the performance-per-watt of GDDR5 memory. With that being said, the specs listed are by no means confirmed by AMD, yet. We shall find out soon enough during AMD's E3 press conference scheduled for June 16.
Vendors like to claim this, but the FDA clarified over 10 years ago that vendors are expected to apply security patches and other updates outside of the core clinical software. Re-certification is not required, the vendor merely has to certify that they tested the update for any effect on clinical function.
Exclusivity deals are illegal under US Federal law 47 U.S.C. 253(a): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."