I know of a law firm who would be glad to take his case
It is called Summerfield Browne solicitors, they do excellent work.
338 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Aug 2017
Finally, after much trying I just found my first subject, thanks for helping me.
It would be nice if everyone could be as helpful as you but i'm having no such luck, a poll with one idiot alone is not what I had in mind, I fear I will have to cancel it.
I'd say securing it is close to impossible. With so many serious technical vulnerabilities lurking in that platform and an effective method put in place by M$ legal team to shift M$' blame away from them and put it fully on your shoulders, there is little hope you can make it secure. That task is too huge, you won't have the resources.
To get better pictures you need talent and a bigger image sensor, that and semi half decent lenses too. You know, the kind of problems that all smartphones will always struggle with, problems that no amount of trickery will ever be able to solve.
Put mechanisms in place that ensure you will be able to keep extracting massive rents from them for the rest of their lives. Mold their minds in the direction you choose, make them accept peacefully their position of serfdom to you as the natural order of things.
This is Digital Feudalism being established, this is part of a social reengineering effort that aims to establish a new caste system, a system where those children will occupy the lowest rank.
Faecebook does harm to people and to society, people who willingly choose to be on faecebook have tacitly accepted to be victims of that kind of malware that faecebook provides to society.
The malware that oink provides does not differ much from the malware faecebook provides, if one is allowed the the other should be allowed too, the facts should by themselves be more than enough to render the whole case moot, malware of that kind is legit on faecebook because people have accepetd to be spyed on.
The malware oink provides does not differ from the malware faecebook provides, if faecebok are alowed to do it then oink should be allowed too.
to ensure the injected malicious code “is compatible with a known source file."
The minimum that could have occurred is one of two possible scenarios:
1) SolarWinds were using a weak hash function, one that the hackers could exploit;
2) The hash function was strong but the hackers had someone inside who edited the format (by unnoticeable removal/addition of whitespace) of a source file in such a way that its function and visuals remained unaltered but the hash sum changed to a value that fitted the hackers' needs.
Either that or something much worse.
You lose visibility, errors start popping everywhere and you can't see them all because they are so many and everything is so opaque.
When it inevitably breaks don't blame your poor judgement, it is so much easier to put the blame on someone else.
Your defenses may be built by rockstar ninja technical geniuses but if you complicate it too much, piling cruft on top of cruft, you will be increasing the surface area for attack and at some point that surface area will be so large that any sufficiently committed average skill hacker (malicious or not) will find a way in.
Basically each additional step you take to make your quantum contraption work properly is a step that makes it more classical, less quantum.
I guess nature is trying to tell us something, something very important. If only we would listen.
If were wise I would not put too much faith in those efforts.
He just that article, look at this:
"The real problems - the interesting problems - in computing are never solved by an SoC. The real problems - the interesting problems - are moving data, not doing sums in a CPU."
See? I know, it's Shocking, isn't it.
The communist party regime rulers see china as a monoculture, all diversity is to be suppressed. Of the ancient chinese nationalities none are left today, Tibet and several others will join them soon.
That's hardly news to anyone who's not in china, why do I have to explain it to you? Are you in china?
Apple has its users best interests in mind, keeping the users protected and away from undesirable influence is top of mind at apple, by keeping them permanently under surveillance apple is able to ensure that they do not stray from the pack and get lost.
Blanket IP banning is easy and indeed it is safe because if people cannot access your service then they can do no harm to it. The blanket ban approach may work well for some local sites but if that is not your case then it will work against you.
Blanket IP banning worked well 10 years ago but not anymore, things have changed, a lot, these days you'll find malicious bots sharing IP addresses with legitimate users and unless your case is very specific I'm sure you don't want to ban those legitimate users.
Blanket IP banning is bad, laziness is bad.
we can easily find alleged professionals who can't do it any better than block entire IP ranges that are shared by many users, most of the affected users being perfectly legitimate, doing nothing wrong.
With almost everyone running massively shared IP infrastructures these days this cannot be good, applying a brain dead solution is not the right thing to do.
Given his immense talent I can already anticipate the headlines.
something like this: 'Elon "pedo guy" Musk moves fast and breaks Giuseppe Verdi's legacy'
or: 'Elon "pedo guy" Musk disrupts Giuseppe Verdi's legacy.'
or worse: 'Elon "pedo guy" Musk murders La Traviata'