The dolphins listened to an entire "sentence" before replying, according to the article, which points out that dolphin brains are larger and more complex than the brains of humans.
This is the best summary. My ex-girlfriend never listened to an "entire" sentence before replying. I need to start dating dolphins.
The official claim is that they intentionally took the site down as they found a security issue while trying to mitigate the DDoS. Not exactly inspiring confidence.
Source? I saw they said: http://help.census.abs.gov.au/...
Just after 7.30pm, the following confluence of events occurred:
A fourth denial of service attempt
A large increase in traffic to the website with thousands of Australians logging on to complete their Census
A hardware failure when a router became overloaded
Occurrence of a false positive, which is essentially a false alarm in some of the system monitoring information.
i.e. no security issue. Their systems got overloaded, melted down, and flagged an alert for a possible issue that didn't exist, so they shut it down.
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough).
Evidently they didn't do the load testing properly. If they can't get that right how can anybody expect them to secure personal data properly.
Yet they're forcing mandatory retention of personal data.
They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
By claiming it's a DDOS it just proves even more that they can't secure anything. How can they be trusted to keep sensitive data if they can't get something so basic functioning properly?
My first part was a little bit tongue in cheek. half a million to a company that specialises in such should have been enough but clearly wasn't.
However you seem to be harping on the security of the data - There was no "security breach" - No one got access to their systems. They simply got overloaded (blew up a router, etc) and shut it down because it simply wasn't robust enough. But zero security issues. Keeping a server up and running and able to support a predictive load is one thing, security of data is another thing entirely. Those responsible for the server being able to handle the traffic have nothing whatsoever to do with those ensuring the security of the data.
Then again, don't trust anyone to keep any data secure and you'll be better off. Government requires we submit this data - and it can - so either fill it out and suck it up, pay the fine, or leave the country, but never assume perfect security.
What's the difference between a DDoS attack and 4 million people all trying to submit their census all at the same time?
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough). They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
Maybe he wouldn't have minded being outed as much if he hadn't be in Saudi Arabia at the time it was revealed.
Then he should focus on bringing Saudi Arabia down... oh, they're richer than he is. Next best tantrum target? Oh, that newspaper who reported a fact. He sure stomped that journalist down.
BS gawker ruined average peoples lives and got what they deserved. They are the ultimate example of an ugly bully who got cocky and took on the wrong guy. A jury of our peers made this decision and they did the right thing.
Gawker did nothing deserving of this. They did not "ruin average peoples lives". Sure, that sex tape was not something I needed or even wanted to see, (I actually still haven't seen it, don't need to, reading about it is enough for me)
I explained why the walled garden was actually an advantage over the alternative in this case.
No, you stated there is a walled garden, defined roughly what that meant (which I think is an argument as to why it is a disadvantage) then acted like it was the opposite.
I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden
The walled garden for the most part is a technical user pet peeve. For most a contained device that offers predictable performance, stability and continued OS support is far more important. That's been their bread and butter since the beginning.
You said something, in a reply to my post, but it was some rhetoric, and didn't clarify anything at all to me.
GP is right, All the vendors market to the guys wearing stars
GP can only be partially right.
Are you actually surprised that the Apple product out performed the Android device? I know I'm not. The devices simply aren't competing on the same level. IOS is for Apple's device only. It's fine tuned for its hardware and vice versa. Android is tailored for devices and fine tuned by the manufacturer. This is a clear disadvantage for the platform.
My 2 cents!
I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden....
Any program which runs right is obsolete.