Karlozkiller

This is exactly what I would have wanted for my master thesis about half a year ago, where I wanted to use s2t with good control over the system without having to implement everything myself.

Can you expand on "US=Russia"? or link the press conference in question.

What I did mean was that at least from my understanding of it, you get systemd, and then you have all of systemd, unable to replace one part of systemd with some other package to handle that specific task.

One of the features I would like to see for example is less binary logging and this journalctl madness. Binary logging makes it harder for me to plug in other programs to parse the logs or whatever I want to do.

So what I would like to see is modularity in the sense where I can choose to run systemd as an init system, and something not-systemd for logging, or for scheduling or whatever.

This should surely stop the critics from saying systemd is doing too much and is bloatful.

No, but seriously I understand the reason why you'd want this, but what stops systemd from being divided into smaller modules? Like the Linux I'm used to.

Run the commands from the article?

hping3 -1 -C 3 -K 3 -i u20 <target ip>

ofc that assumes you have access to hping/hping3. I plan to check my own server as soon as I can.

Huh. The solution is to not handle icmp type 3 or "hire official anti-ddos services"? I assume there's a way to maintain ICMP type 3 functionality while still mitigating this attack...?

I just heard about this from another source and figured I'd search HN before posting myself. I'm surprised this has not gotten more attention.

One thing they mentioned in the podcast I was listening to, was that they've actually proven they can detect explosives in the air through the leaves of the plant too.

They were also talking about triangulating signals from several plants to find the location of a pollutant in ground water.

They also notes that the procedure or modifying these plants is just pushing water containing the nano-particles onto the leaves with a needle-less syringe. And you could basically go up to any plant in the wild and do this.

Was Elon Musk really the one first posing this idea?

Am I dreaming or is this old news? I get a strong feeling that I've read this before, but I can find no date on the actual article!?

To begin with the uptake rate would be different. If you eat a whole bean your body will have to break it down into smaller parts (by chewing initially and so on) and in the end you'll get different amounts of whatever is in it in your system at different times if you eat it whole or grouns up. another example would be certain seeds. Many seeds contain cyanide (well known poison!?), which is not dangerous in the seed because the amount you'll get into your system is miniscule. however if you ground the seed up, you'd get more cyanide taken up by your body, which could be bad for you. (I can't say how big the difference would be but it is theoretically sound)

I don't know if the Internet is the problem here. When I was a kid me and my friends accidentally found massive amounts of porn-mags in the small woods close to our school. Fun and exciting we thought, not really in a sexual way. doesn't matter.

Should we ban porn mags too? Or should we ban urban areas? Or regulate how you legally can dispose of porn-mags? I've also accidentally seen people being too drunk, and people having heart attacks. As a kid.. how should we protect people from seeing things? it's the wrong line of thinking.

I might be misinterpreting what you're saying. But it almost sounds like you're saying this is not such a bad thing.

I would regardless ask the question in the punchline of the article: "why would you trust a security suite when they pull tricks like that"? (not verbatim)

Brain scans are not as accurate as one might think. Most or all methods merely show activation of neurons or groups of neurons over a timescale.

Typically you give a person, say a memory task, you look at which areas fire up as he tries to memorise a word list and from that you extrapolate whatever you can from it. I also believe working memory and short term memory are to some extent better understood than long term memory. actually the least known process regarding memory I think is how memories pass from working memory or short term memory into long term memory.

Things like memories are not well understood from what I've gathered as a Master's Student in cognitive science.

I mean, it is thought to be stored in the form of persistent patterns in neurons and we know certain areas of the brain that are vital for the formation of memories. But there is no clear model of how memories are formed.

There has been rapid increase in understanding of such things lately and I would say neural networks give some insight and ways to explore and experiment with different configurations further.

A physical model like this could probably serve as a proof of concept and maybe help further knowledge in the are, but I suspect computerized simulations will serve this purpose better.

tldr; as much of a layman I believe we know too little about the brain to make a proper physical brain.

You're implying that this is not advisable to do because any such fallback could snoop the data?

I'm sorry I'm not sure I quite understand what you say the problem is and how it relates to the unencrypted nature of email.

There are many similar programs/games, where you program through icons instead. There is some science behind suggesting there is some transfer to real world programming from that.

As far as I recall, children can learn "Computational Thinking" without having to concentrate on the often heavy syntax of programming.

I agree with you that setting up candy on a table, to take a photo of it and then getting some game-character to move accordingly, sounds a bit far fetched and might not give enough to actually learn programming. But it could definitely work to some extent, and if nothing else it sounds like a great markething scheme.

Yes this definitely happens. I've had people on the same network as me getting Japanese YouTube ads just because I or someone else looked at a few Japanese videos.

That's exactly why many don't run the official Facebook either. There are third party apps using the web-interface meant to sandbox Facebook so they can't gather all information. Up until now those web-interfaces have also been able to use the chat though. And you can still do that with some quick apps made to work around this block by facebook.

I found this app meant to fight this block by facebook. https://github.com/gsurrel/MessengerBypasser/blob/HEAD/READM...

I tried it with tinfoil for facebook and it seems to work well.

It also states that what crashes the tinfoil-app is a call to launch Messenger.

However at least on my Cyanogenmod device I've experienced apps breaking 100% if you deny it a permission. Even if that permission should not be vital to the functioning of the app.

It's great that you can filter permissions, but when you suddenly can't use basic functionality because the programmers added obligatory geolocation to a feature, then you don't have much choice. Remove the app, or allow it to track you.

The android app asks for microphone privilege as of a few years back when they introduced the listen-in feature. The problem here to me, is that when they add the voluntary feature they force everyone to give the app all the permissions needed as well. By doing this your phone has no way of stopping the app from misbehaving as it has given permission for it to do so.

At least that was the case when the feature came out. I think I read something about android now letting you filter permissions and not blindly accept all that an app asks for?

I think it was about 2 years ago that the Facebook android app requested permission to your microphone? As soon as I saw that I warned everyone I knew that they could be listened in on, and uninstalled the app on my phone, using FB through a browser if need be.

I find it interesting how people accept such things without a question. But I guess articles like these are good even if they're late to the party.

Being a hobby linux sysadmin myself I'd say you're right. The hard and often interesting part is to figure out why everything suddenly stopped working. sometimes I see the same problem several times and try to figure out how to stop it from happening again, most of the time though I see completely new problems. But it always helps to know your Linux system and how to hunt down error messages and log files. Buy then I'm no professional.

A police state has always been able to do this. Of course it gets easier by automatic face recognition and the possibility of sharing databases over long distances etc.

The difference from before I guess, is that it's less in your face, and can thereby happen without people noticing as easily.

In many cases it is a willed action though. The images in this article are quite probably uploaded by the people themselves. I don't know exactly how privacy settings work on VKontakte, but from what I've seen most images seem publically searchable.

Now tell me how uploading things to such a database is not a willed action.

I agree with you that there is the possibility of someone else taking such images of you and everyone around you, through surveillance cameras or whatever, but for something of the scale shown in this article you'd still need quite an effort to create such a database without the help from the people themselves, especially if you want to link it to other personal information.

In my opinion you still can. What makes this possible? You need a database linking images to names, as well as the face-recognition data.

People are freely giving away the images for the database linking it all to further personal data. If they did not do this, creating such a database would still be a massive surveillance effort, albeit probably still possible if someone really wanted to do it and had the sufficient resources.

I say it's still possible to stay anonymous if you want to.

I'm more surprised that people are surprised. You provide images to the public with your name and face connected to even more personal data.

Why are you surprised that this data can then be used by a third, or even a fourth party?

Given that there are public images with your face in them and name connected to them, that can be searched by a neural net... Yes.

I was asking the same thing. After thinking about it for a bit and reading more about the case, I think the short answer is no.

I think it could be argued that the nature of Ingress and the main purpose of it is NOT to exploit pictures to the public without paying the artist/sculptor in question. However this could obviously be up for debate, and I guess part of it depends on whether anyone sues Google over it.

Another important point to make is that the suing party in this case states in their press release, that Wikimedia could just have paid the organization a few 1000 SEK per year (~a few 100 USD) in a license fee and it would all be deemed legal.

As I understood it, the way they formulated the ruling says that it only becomes a problem when it reaches "commercial proportion", or "commercial value". According to the ruling it would be illegal for Facebook to do a similar database, the difference here being that Facebook is not creating such a database, and afaik no single Facebook user has attempted it either.

However I'm interested in what the case is with Google Ingress and their effort to make public art etc. more accessible through a smartphone-game using GPS and images.

Furthermore, yes, this is all madness.