Re: "Failure" can be more profitable than success
2407 posts • joined 26 Sep 2011
Hence why I shall not partake of the opportunity to vanity-surf.
Just because a password has been seen doesn't mean it's not safe. In time every human-possible password will be 'seen' (at least in theory). Matching them with a user name or email is another matter.
I'm certainly not testing my bank ones without firing up some torified or other hide-me browser/connection.
"...this is a huge scam to harvest email addresses and passwords entered by people from the same source IP address (to link them together) which to be fair would be a brilliant one..."
Years back when I was managing a few forum pages, I wondered if it would be worth logging failed login attempts along with the failed credentials. Never bothered but I can bet I would've been given people's email acc passwords and/or passwords to other sites they often visit.
I would also bet that 1) I am not the only person to have thought of this and 2) it has already been done.
Perhaps you can explain how someone who has the ability to see and hear, follow complex instructions, show the dedication needed to train themselves to reach a high enough level to be "professional gamers", work in a team environment where they have to show decent hand-eye co-ordination along with hand-ear co-ordination and following orders/working with others in a pressure environent - all this and yet "professional gamer" is the only job they can possibly hold? And how did they afford the kit to become "professional gamer" without already being paid well enough to own such hardware?
You are one weird kid if you even remotely believe what you write.
BTW, new a great guy once who was a pro gamer. All his money from gaming went to his kit, but he also had a full time job to pay for his
addictionprofessionalism. Also gave it up quickly as it made a real mess of his RL relationships.
I asked the lady what happened when she started up the computer in the morning. "Oh, nothing special" was the reply, "just the usual stuff when it starts".
I had one of those too few years (and beers) back. No backups of course, yet somehow it was my responsibility. Even though they'd never been a customer of mine before that day.
Even worse, they "had to do work on the computer" before bringing it in, despite being told that they must NOT use it if they want me to have any chance of recovering their data.
Somehow I was responsible for their lost data, despite not being the stupid twit who wiped things despite clear warnings that all data would be lost!
I need to go and lie down for a few hours.
managers are incompetent techies who got promoted to move them on from a role in which they were useless.
Reminds me of a quote I think in one of the Narnia books (or another CSL book) about a teacher who was so useless she had to be promoted to get her out of the classroom.
Or something like that.
As well as the simple fact the signals have to get back to the ground. Meaning there are chokepoints. That's how China works its magic: it forces everything through chokepoints under its control. Easy enough for anyone else to do.
Yeah um. NO. I've used ground-isolated transmitting and receiving equipment quite often, as do most people in the western world. I even use ground-isolated wireless internet equipment very often, including right now as I type this.
Jamming works to a degree, but you need a lot of power to cover a large enough area to be effective.
Keeping DNA and prints off of something should be trivial for even the dumbest posters here.
Putting someone else's DNA on something should be relatively easy for most here after a tiny little bit of thought - DNA is probably one of the easiest lots of 'evidence' to fake or transfer (have a look at the back of the chair you're sitting on right now).
And for the really smart, obtaining and transferring finger prints (never proven that no 2 people have the same prints) is not particularly hard either. As a thought exercise, figure out how to do it with DNA-matching skin oils or other 'bodily fluids'. Do it right and the evidence sticks quite well in these sorts of cases.
I'm sure they let the press have free run of the entirety of the airport such that there is an even coverage.
A few press cameras can cover a very large area. The sorts of camera operators who work at sports events (eg golf) who can track a tiny ball moving at decent speeds from a long way off would be able to find and track a drone from some way off.
And I'm pretty sure, especially as the airport is closed at these times (or was), there's little harm in having a few members of the press and associated camera crew escorted inside - so long as they're paying for the escort's time and a 'small administration fee' to the higher ups.
"I like the net idea - but it needn’t be a net, steel wire would be effective since that would tangle the blades."
Not if the blades are cowled. Plus, being these are likely industrial-grade drones, what's to say their blades aren't metallic and able to cut a wire?
Cowling adds significant weight thus reducing flight time and manoeuvrability. That's mainly why the prop guards on drones are so small vs the total area of the blade (most covering around 1/4-1/3 of the prop's area)
A large ship's propellor can be fouled by a relatively small rope (in this case a mooring line is "relatively small", although even smaller lines have caused big problems). The blade and the engine combined aren't enough to cut the rope. A small engine on a drone will not cut a wire. If you doubt this, get a decently powered lawn mower and see what the same size wire as a top E-string on a guitar will do to it.
Nothing short of a predator drone will have an engine able to cut even a very thin wire.
In fact, this has practical applications in warfare since this anti-drone drone tech (which would have to be developed since I assume that it doesn’t yet exist) could be handy on the battlefield too.
More than 20 years back I used to take part in battles with kites, RC aircraft and all sorts of other toys. The aim was to bring down your opponent while still maintaining controlled flight yourself.
The tech has been around a while.
(I wonder if nets could be deployed from a form of barrage balloon?)
The worst that would then happen is maybe a little dent in an aircraft's metal skin - if it was incredibly unlucky - like hitting a squirrel on a golf-course - unlucky.
I've heard it said that a beer bottle cap can be enough to destroy a jet engine (some doco show many years back). Certainly a dent in any propeller is a problem and can lead to the loss of a prob blade, which can be catastrophic to anyone nearby.
Not one plane that was there before the shooting would be able to leave until every scrap of every bullet was accounted for.
That said, if the planes were to be put into hangers (or every hole in the engines and sensors covered) before the shooting began they should be fairly safe. But if I was the person with the drones I'd not be flying at that stage, obviously something about to be happening when they go to those lengths.
A decent bounty for evidence leading to the prosecution could work, but then that would run the risks of vigilantes and perhaps a few more innocents locked up.
Reality isn't obviosuly something you're well aquainted with, but a few little facts.
1) When you're desperate for a job you take every interview you can get. 4 in one day is pretty common. Last time I was on a benefit you had to prove you were applying for 5 jobs per day 5 days per week - that's 25 applications per week. If you turned down even one interview your benefit was cut unless you had a damned good reason, and only a direct scheduling conflict was enough. If you had 1/2 and hour to travel 50km then you could do it, if public transport wasn't available you were expected to find another way.
2) Not every where has public transport. Not every job is during times that public transport operates. Not every interview meets those schedules. I have interviewed for IT work at 2am. The first test was being able to reach the place at that time of the day. The town I grew up in did not have public transport except to other cities. It still doesn't, except for taxis.
3) You claim "none of that is true" and yet you're also claiming I don't know your life. You don't know mine, you don't know my name, where I grew up, what sort of school I went to, what education I have. You may've done OK with your life, but reality shows that your case is not common. Where it is not family help, it's luck. I know a lot of people including myself who have worked very hard and most get nowhere. I know a few who've always had it easy, and generally have family wealth to fall back on .
My example, BTW, came from my own life. I did miss jobs simply because I wasn't as clean and fresh as others who had family provide them with transport while I had to walk or jog to the interview. Nothing 'convoluted' about it, it's reality for a lot of people.
At least, when the next big crash comes, I'll happily live my life without fear of losing what I have while so many others will be struggling to get by with twice what I have.
The rich and poor alike share the same external environment, thus the differentiator is primarily and heavily disposed to be their own failings. Sorry snowflakes, but in reality you get rewarded for effort and you don't get rewarded for lack of effort. In nature you'd just be dead, so first world "poor" is a pretty cushy place to land for zero effort.
I shall use a simple but real example.
Two graduates, same sex, same age, same fitness, same qualifications, marks and experience.
Both are going to the same places for interviews at roughly the same time. In a day they are going to 4 sites, each 5 miles apart, each interview start time is 2 hours apart (1st is 9am, 2nd 11am, 3rd 1pm, 4th 3pm).
It is a summer day.
The richer person is driven to each site in an air-conditioned car. They also have with them changes of clothes and a gym membership that means they'll be able to shower and change at least once during the course of the day. They can spend their time reviewing any material relevant to the interview. They will arrive to each site fresh and happy.
The poor person has to walk from site to site, or at best use public transport. While they started out clean they will not have time for a shower and do not have the resources for an extra set of clothes. They won't have much review time, and will arrive at each site tired, somewhat stressed, over-heated and less able to focus
Who will put in the most effort? Who is most likely to be hired?
Or there's the underwear example. You are poor, you have ONE set of underclothes. At the end of every day you have to wash and dry them so you have something clean for tomorrow. Someone gives you another set, you now have two. You still have to wash what you wear today so you have something for the next day. You also have to cook your own meals, do your own house cleaning and so on, and still be prepared for whatever work opportunity comes along.
You're rich. You have plenty of clothes (even just 7 sets gives you a once-a-week wash cycle). You have someone else to do your cooking and cleaning. Your time and mental energy can be devoted solely to your job.
Who has the better opportunity?
That's without looking at other things like having family who know someone and so on.
I know this from being orphaned young and having to make my own way while seeing friends get help from their family. I don't begrudge them that, but the effort they've needed to put in just to get to an interview has been far less than mine. And in many cases, their dad has been sitting there with them saying "If you give my son a job, I'll make sure my firm sends you some business" or "We'll up your discount by another 20% for the next 5 years".
Not even close to a level playing field.
Just as a little challenge to the so-called "Greatest Nation" : Poxy little NZ is doing a nation-wide broadband-to-every-house rollout (in fact we're doing fibre-to-every-house!).
Sure, we don't have some of the vast expanses with little population that you do, but we also don't have the huge numbers of populations that you do.
We have quite a few independent ISPs as well.
If a tiny bunch of what drumpf calls "free loaders" (because we're smart enough to pay a reasonable price for medication instead of paying $tupid$$$$$$!) can do it, then surely the nation with the "biggest", "bestest" and "mostest" can achieve something like this.
Be careful, that cauldron is very large and includes folks' who also thought they were "safe".
I knew a US musician many years ago. Great fellow, did well especially in South American countries. Wasn't 'rich' but had a free-hold home and very healthy bank account.
Liking to do things himself is what literally killed him. He took a fall while painting his house, and messed up his back. His medical insurance wasn't quite as good as he expected, and of course your options for changing aren't great when you're already injured.
Not too long later he died while living on the street, his home long sold and his welfare not even beginning to cover his medical costs.
In the US it seems it takes ONE accident to make a huge change to anyone from upper-middle-class and down. If your partner doesn't have the income to support your costs, and your insurance doesn't come to the party.....
@CrazyOldCatMan said: "because people like you refuse to do your Christian duty to help the poor"
Leave the religion out will you? Not everyone has invisible friend(s) but still help people in need nevertheless!
Thing is.. I believe that Bob has portrayed himself as Christian, and like a great many on the right-wing side of things, claim to be Christian while railing against the "lazy poor" every chance they get.
The big problem here, of course, is that Christians are supposed to help the poor every way they can (not necessarily to the "sell everything you have and give the money to the poor" level but certainly
Many so-called Christians seem to say "The poor are lazy and deserve to be stepped on". The Bible says "True religion is this : Help the widows and orphans in their distress" and talks elsewhere of helping the poor. Even scarier for the RW-lot, the early Christians lived in COMMUNES and SHARED ALL THEIR STUFF with each other. Often converts would sell their land or other property, use the money to help the poor, and live with the rest of the God-bunch in whatever housing the COMMUNE had available.
Almost like a bunch of pinko-hippy-commies if you ask me!
(Yes, I follow Christ, and while not living in a commune I do live a lot closer to the early ways)
Bob, hope you never have an accident that means you cannot work for a while.
You'll discover very quickly just how shoddy the US medial and insurance scams are.
You'll discover even more quickly the gulf between your rants and reality.
And even if you heal, a good bet you'll discover how hard it is to get a good job again when you've been out of work for a year, are poor, and desperate.
Welfare looks great when you think you can live off it. It looks terrible when you actually have to rely on it for a little while.
It's absolutely disgusting when every where you go you get turned down because you are on welfare.
You know where the downvote button is.
 I was going to use the word "system" but no, these are terrible scams through and through. Nothing about them could be called a 'system'.
Don't get me wrong: I don't like the things myself but ultimately the state has ways of making us comply.
gentle civil disobedience often wins in the end. If you don't like it don't live with it.
Are they there for your benefit as a citizen, or theirs? If the government is for the benefit of the citizen then the citizen must remind them of this from time to time, and unpopular acts by the government must be dealt with and even punished by the citizens who employ them.
But as Franklin(?) said, those who give up liberty for security deserve to lose both.
Televise the event, put it on PayPerView to make some *serious* money, & let the world watch as Zuck gets questioned between each shove off the roof.
1) Make it cheap, so even the poorer people can get to see it and enjoy.
2) For 1c/person/vote, also have the execs from MS, Google, Apple and various other nefarious types up there. You get to vote who gets pushed next.
3) You may also get to vote on the contents of the pool.
4) For $10/person/vote, you get to vote on the length of the rope......
good points you made here, especially the ways of using vpn, I can agree with that, but I don't see a point of making your own vpn. Especially when there are such a good ones like Nordvpn for a few dollars a month, they are well developed, if you lucky enough you can get it very cheap. And it still will get u some more advantages than what you can build at home.
My own VPN started life as an instance of OpenVPN + PiHole on a Media Centre box that was on 24/7 (collecting the 'necessary data' for the next series or a few movies we wanted to watch ;) ). The machine was on already, so all I needed was a few minutes to install the software and configure the software and a bit of port forwarding on the router. It is effectively free, as the bandwidth is 'unlimited' and the power is already being used. (FTR it now resides on my own cloud server).
Just make sure it is not a free vpn, because it does not go in one sentence with privacy.
I often watch a vid or two on YT before I go to sleep, using a tablet propped up against a pillow (it turns itself off after the video stops if I don't start another one). On Saturday I visited NordVPN for the first time, with JS off by default. Among the 4 lots of JS their site wants 2 are their own, one is discuss, and the last is google tag manager. Last night (Monday), I again went to watch a vid and what do I see in my list? Lots and lots of stuff about VPNS.
On my desktop maching and my tablet I have OpenVPN set up, but my VPN is not at my home now. I don't have OpenVPN on this laptop, so when I looked up NordVPN I did it from the same IP the tablet uses, however for this discussion I am coming from a different IP. Since the videos appeared in YT just after I visited Nord, and I haven't previously looked up any vids on YT nor do I use google to search for stuff, a reasonable conclusion is that google got a record of my visit to NordVPN from them, and from there got the idea that I am interested in that product. If Nord fed that data to google then they're hardly respecting my privacy, and as they use google products in their web site I think it's a fair bet that they don't truly respect your privacy. I have advised them that until I am satisfied such things are not going to occur in future (including the removal of all google js bs from their site) I will tell people to not be keen to trust them. I'm sure with the dozen or so people I might be able to add to their customer base of millions, they'll hop to it right away and perform a complete redesign of their systems to make sure google is as excluded as possible..... :)
Besides that, I'm not exactly sure where Nord operates from. They could well be subject to a court order which whilst I do not trust1 any online service I don't myself control, I still would not be happy with anyone trying to track anything I am doing.
1 There are degrees of 'trust'. I do not trust that the information I post to El Reg will make it's way to their servers without someone attempting to look at it, but I do not care because it is for publication. I do not trust that my emails will get through various ISP's without being looked at (pretty sure google et al mine your emails for stuff of interest to them), so I either don't send anything confidential or I encrypt it.
1) Lots of ISP's (at least over these ways) do static IPs, or ones that don't tend to change, without charge (or with a nominal charge). I don't recall when my ADSL IP last changed but it has been more than 2 years.
2) If you don't use it for nasty behaviour, you don't need 'plausible deniability'.
2a) Can be aided by letting others use it if you're on Fibre. Unless you can pay your VPN provider in cash, there is potentially a paper trail. And if enough of a VPN's customers are acting nefariously, they may get a 'purchase order' from a government department knowing for buying rubber hose by the kilometre.
3) Vulture (that someone else mentioned in this thread) charge $2.5(us?)/month per instance, and you can set them up in a number of different countries if you wish - just from looking at their page for a few minutes.
I tried viewing El Regs site over Tor the other day.
El Reg really does need to dispense with clodfool. It drove me away for a while, though it seems better now.
There's always something like Whonix (think that's the name) which will let you run that JS BS in a VPN that can only connect to the internet via another VPN that acts as a TOR gateway. Not necessarily absolutely perfectly secure, but more than enough to keep you safe from clodfool's harrassment while you're innocently browsing El Reg.
(As if there was any innocence around here! Naivety maybe, but innocence?????)
I'll also note that these days the BBC require those accessing their media to have an BBC account with a listed physical UK mailing address. VPNs can't help with that wrinkle.
That's not too hard to work around. Same way you can get stuff where you must have a delivery address in a certain country. Just be on good terms with someone over there :)
You can even do a VPN-swap if you can handle the hit on your data. You set up one there and give me a log in, and I set up one here and give you a log in (no, not offering sorry, my bandwidth is too limited for any more users!)
Agreed! The statement is too vague, leaving out the only actual reason to create your own VPN: Access to an encrypted connection directly to your own computer. That may well be exactly what you need to deal with wide open, unencrypted WiFi hotspots.
That's why I run it as well. Plus it allows me SSH as if I'm on my own network whilst not actually leaving the SSH ports open to the public. I now have the port my VPN is on, and the ports for web and email servers.
I can trust any connection because the VPN is encrypted end-end, and it uses cert-based authentication to connect.
I've had no trouble. It runs on a small laptop (Dell D630) in the cupboard my router is in, with it's own sub-domain, and I use cert-based authentication.
Pi-Hole helps a lot in keeping nasties out as well.
Makes using outside networks a lot safer, I know if I am at a friend's that my data is safe from their hands. Same for from a cafe, though I am much less likely to do my online banking even then (even though I can verify that the tunnel is encrypted over and above the HTTPS to the bank).
When a friend was in hospital recently we also had his system using it. Noted the hospital had blocks on the usual VPN port so we moved it - big advantage with home-grown.
It takes minutes to set up, and so far I've used it with Debian and Devuan based systems, Android (4&6 via the OpenVPN app) and even Win 7. Only issues I had was Devuan not using the server for DNS, which came down to a particular package not being installed that was used to update /etc/resolv.conf.
(Does pay to set the OpenVPN app to block all traffic on a disconnect, just in case it disconnects on your phone just before you start your banking session while at the local watering hole).
From what Tim Cook has stated may times, they are small fry in the data slurp league when compared to MS, Google, Facebook and others but...
Many times during my school career I heard a whiny child-like voice saying "but he did it too!" as if that somehow excused bad behaviour. Even sometimes a similar whiny kiddy voice saying "but she did it worse".
That sort of behaviour should be gone by the time of your 10th birthday. It's not a fitting excuse for any adult, let alone the CEO of a large corporation.
Yet the fans will consider it to be a reasonable excuse regardless of who uses it.
This seems to clearly be a case of pushing an offensive gay leftwing agenda where it doesn't belong.
I'm both gay and pretty much a lefty at that (left of centre with right-wing traits sure, but mostly lefty).
I am quite happy to say such stuff as what has been discussed here does not belong in Dr Who. They started this stuff with Eccleston(sp), continued it to some degree under Tennant, I don't recall much of it under Smith of Capaldi but by the time we got through half of the Capaldi stuff that was it for me+Dr Who. There's the old series around, and I'd rather watch an episode made up from poor quality still pictures where the audio is more hum than speech, where it's been through several VCR's and the early text to describe what was going on has largely lost its definition (and is thus unreadable) than watch the modern versions. I quite liked most of the writing during Tennant's tenure, didn't mind Eccleston or Smith, but the first season with Capaldi was just too much (it's not really him as an actor, though how he portrayed the Dr may've had a bearing - but actors can only do so much with that level of crap writing!).
I think it was the one with the monster hatching from the moon and laying another egg that instantly became a new moon that finally stopped us watching.
Really? Biologists are not scientists?
Name one _respected_ biologist that says that evolution is nonsense.
I'll get to your other stuff later, just dropping this one here for now.
Would Raymond Damadian do for a start?
Of course, I also mentioned Francis Collins in the post you were replying to, or do geneticists not count in your books?
There's a couple. Or do you believe that the man credited with inventing the MRI and one of the leading physicians in the USA aren't exactly "respected scientists" - or despite their work being within the field of biology will you claim they're not biologists?
And I'm pretty sure I did not say that any of them claimed evolution was nonsense (they may have done but I am not currently aware of such claims). I was the one making that statement.
> And yet there's a great many respected scientists who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.
Except a) they are not 'scientists',
Really? Biologists are not scientists? Physists are not scientists? I guess that explains a lot about your posts.
I'd forgotten the likes of Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Faraday to name a very small few were not scientists and did not have the respect of the scientific community. There's that guy Francis Collins as well, but he's some unknown wannabe who has no standing or respect whatsoever in the scientific community. There's that guy Kelvin as well, but then he was forgotten - not like he had a temperature scale named after him or anything. Max Planck was, of course, as thick as 2 planks when it comes to quantum theory. Nope, you're right, not one of these people were scientists or in any way respected.
Oh, and tell me how you can test evolution? Can you present me with a copy of the dinosaur DNA that birds evolved from? It should be easy if it can be tested like you claim? Can you present one proven example of changes necessary for microbe-man evolution? Just one? there's supposed to have been millions of them, so just one verifiable change shouldn't be much to ask?
Just one? One teency tiny wee proven change?
No? Guess that means evolution is un-testable then.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019