Yes, that was certainly what I was thinking of. This would be a very common scenario in a large datacenter, but the traffic would be fairly local. Due to latency any datacenter would aim to keep the databases in close proximity to the applications. Nobody would stick their webserver in California and their MySQL database in France. Now, database replication might present an opportunity to tamper with WAN MySQL traffic, but does anybody do anything other than one-way replication using something like MySQL. I'd think that if you were getting into those kinds of problems a different technology would be used.
Do you know how many cheapo hosting companies give you MySQL with your account?
Sure, but why would that traffic go over the internet? You would have your server-side application component talk to the database.
Yeah, the dribbles of conflicting info is really odd here. I could see why in a national security situation a country might choose to not say much of anything, but these inconsistent messages seem rather odd.
Why keep changing the story?
Agreed, though it is interesting that nobody spotted them on radar if hypoxia were responsible. For that to happen the autopilot would have had to been set to fly a heading away from any land, and then the crew would have to lose consciousness.
Maybe if there were a problem they might put the autopilot into heading mode, but why select a heading away from land? Maybe I could see them turning the setting back towards home and passing out while still turning the dial, but I would think they'd set the heading before selecting heading mode, in which case the aircraft would be following the FMS.
I wonder how efficient ATC is in Asia. Could the airplane have actually flown across a country without actually being noticed? In a hypoxia situation the crew would probably not have disabled communications, though I suppose equipment failure is a possibility. In that case it would have working transponder, ACARS, etc.
The whole situation just seems odd.
I blame TV. Apparently everyone thinks we are actively tracking every single object flying through the air everywhere, every second of every day...
Well, over countries this isn't too far from the truth. Sure, in desolate areas there might not be primary coverage, but I understand that after 9/11 there was quite a bit of investment in primary radar around populated areas.
This aircraft was out at sea, however, and what country is going to care about monitoring airspace out there? In fact, that is half the driver for ADS-B adoption - you can track airliners out at sea that way, and by doing so greatly increase airspace utilization.
Not quite correct. The situation is quite a bit more complex than that.
ATC obtains information about aircraft in the area in a number of ways.
One is primary radar - which is in fact radar. It generally has a limited range - maybe 50 miles or so. Usually civilian equipment cannot detect altitude either, and of course it picks up noise from birds and weather and such.
The more useful source of data is secondary radar, which relies on transponders. The transponders generate a pulse when they are interrogated - the aircraft doesn't need to know its own location for this to work - the ground station works it out from the time to receive the reply. The transponder can encode a code to identify the aircraft, and it can also encode the altitude (or at least what the plane thinks its altitude is).
The more recent development is ADS-B via UAT and ES. These involve the aircraft broadcasting its position as determined by GPS. It can be sent out as part of the transponder reply, or it can be sent out without any need for secondary radar at all, potentially even being picked up by satellite.
So, radar is used to track aircraft, but with its limited range civilian radar would not detect an airliner out at sea unless it had a cooperative transponder. Even with a transponder range is only 100 miles or so. You can get much longer ranges with military radar, especially if it is airborne. However, stumbling on one of those would require luck, and a military aircraft probably wouldn't be on the lookout for rogue airliners.
I don't know how much is known vs speculation here. If the NSA has some MySQL manipulation tools, it might not actually be intended for use on the actual internet. It is possible that they infiltrate networks and use these tools on the inside.
It came out that they're tapping dedicated lines, and those are often unencrypted. However, I'd expect most competent mysql use to stay confined to a LAN, even with encryption. Latency tends to cause problems if you separate the database from the application layer. But, I'm sure that not everybody the NSA targets is competent...
Again, this should all be covered by the company that wins the bid. If they don't like it, they shouldn't bid on the contract.
>because most of the requirements are out of date,
Contractor's fault. If the requirements are impossible, tell the customer and don't bid.
>were written by somone who had no idea what they were asking for
Same as above.
>or are missing critical pieces of functionality or details.
Same as above.
>Then you find out you need to integrate with a 35 year old Wang mainframe that runs some weird esoteric algorithm that no one alive understands.
If that's in the contract you signed, you need to do it. If it isn't in the contract, don't do it, or re-bid for that portion.
This would all be much simpler if both parties simply adhered to the terms of the contract. If the terms are unrealistic or impossible, don't bid.
Your analogy is missing the part where the adult walked up with the 10 year old and told the cashier that the child was allowed to use the credit card, and then left.
When did the device owner literally say to the phone, "my child is allowed to buy $x worth of in-game purchases?"
All he did was enter a password after authorizing a purchase he made. At no point did he intend for anybody else to buy something, or communicate that to anybody. Even if he checked a box saying "keep my password for 30 min" that isn't the same as authorizing a specific additional transaction. How can you agree to a transaction you don't even know about? And it isn't like you can give a 10-year-old a power of attorney.
Google has an easy way of verifying that the account holder or someone authorized by them is using the phone: require the password.
That helps, but is no means absolute proof of authorization or intent to purchase. If somebody steals the password, you are NOT liable for purchases made using it via a credit card.
Of course, the fact that the password was entered at the time of the transaction would be considered by a court as evidence that there was an authorization. That isn't absolute proof, but it would be considered.
It is actually hard to prove that any online transaction is authorized. Companies use them because they're far more convenient and repudiation is not that big a risk. However, you'd never see them used for a major purchase, such as for a car or home. A court is going to put lots of weight on testimony that somebody looked you in the eye, went over a contract, and got both verbal and written agreement on its terms, and they watched you sign it and checked your ID. If there was a notary present then that agreement would be ironclad unless you could prove outright fraud/conspiracy on the part of the notary (signing in front of a notary is basically the same as signing in a courtroom in front of a clerk). They won't put nearly as much weight on testimony that says, "well, whoever was sitting at the keyboard knew his credit card number."
Doesn't this mean that anybody could reverse any online marketplace credit card transaction just blaming their kids? Or even wife, if it wasn't my intent that she used my card for online shopping?
That's why the cashier is supposed to look at your signature when you sign the receipt. The store can of course go after the person who "stole" the card and press charges if they don't return the item, and I suspect they could basically force the cardholder to cooperate in this by making a declaration to the police that their card was used without permission.
That's also why there is a notary present when you sell a house or sign a mortgage. If they just mailed around documents you COULD argue that somebody forged your signature and it would be on the other parties to PROVE that you actually signed it.
You can't accidentally become a party to a contract. The signature is really just a manifestation of the decision you made in your head to agree to the terms. If you didn't intend to agree to something, then there is no contract. If there is no contract, then you aren't obligated to pay anybody anything.
A contract is a mater of intent. If the cardholder didn't intend to make a contract, then he didn't.
If he leaves a signature stamp lying around, that isn't a license for anybody to come along and start stamping away.
The problem with privatization is that it ends up being worse than having the government do it directly, because there's no consequences for failure. Several companies bid on the project, but they low-ball the bid to win the project because the lowest bidder almost always wins. But then the project costs much more, and somehow the government is on the hook for these cost overruns, instead of the contractor being responsible (since they did, after all, bid a certain amount). The problem here is the government agrees to contracts which allow enormous overruns at the government's expense. If the contractor fails, what's the penalty? At worst, they get dismissed (and keep all the cash) and someone new takes over.
It's simple: make the bids binding, and if the contractor fails to meet the terms, they pay to get it right, and if they can't, they forfeit their company and the officers are all personally responsible.
There's a phrase that might apply here: "None of us is as dumb as all of us."
The fix isn't impossible, but it's difficult because of entrenched moneyed interests and people who support these because they blame the "other side" for all the problems. The conservatives blame the liberals, the "gay agenda", etc. for all the nation's problems, and the liberals blame the conservatives, the Koch Brothers, etc. for all the nation's problems. Neither of them blame the leaders on their own political side for the problems. The fix is to toss out all the leaders (on both sides), and rework the government to prevent the same things from happening again, such as by overturning Citizens United and writing new legislation to get money out of politics, to mandate a more fair voting system (proportional voting or Condorcet method or approval voting etc.), and likely a whole new Constitution. Good luck getting changes that large pushed through though. You can't even do the first two points because neither "side" is in favor of it (it would drastically reduce their power), and the last one is nearly impossible without a full revolution.
This is why countries never tend to get better, they always degenerate, until there's some giant war or bloody revolution to wipe the slate clean and start over. Think about it: when was the last time you heard of a country reforming itself voluntarily and getting much better, without a lot of violence? Look at the Roman Empire for instance: it decayed and then collapsed. It took Europe 1000 years to get back to that level of civilization and technology. Look at European countries now; sure, they're great places to live for the most part, but you can thank WWII for that.
This is exactly what I saw, and I'm just married without any kids. Huge monthly fees (not as high as yours though, remember I don't have kids), and ridiculously high deductibles. And I'm in a blue state. I went back to work in corporate America, but I'm a contractor so I don't get free healthcare.