You may have missed them but it is worth pointing out these two tiny sections of the article:
> In general, a large mass of wood, such as a CLT floor, is difficult to burn without a sustained heat source—for the same reason that it is hard to light a camp fire when all you have is logs. Once the outside of the timber chars it can prevent the wood inside from igniting. The big urban fires of the past, such as the Great Fire of London, which occurred 350 years ago this month, were mostly fuelled by smaller sections of timber acting as kindling. Prospective tenants would doubtless need lots of reassurance. But with other fire-resistant layers and modern sprinkler systems, tall wooden buildings can exceed existing fire standards
> What about woodworm and rot? “If you don’t look after it, steel and concrete will fail just as quickly as timber,” says Michael Ramage, head of the Centre for Natural Material Innovation at the University of Cambridge in Britain.
In New Orleans 1972 a concrete and steel building called the Rault Center had it's top two floors gutted by fire, likely arson. The building has been vacant since then, much of it in an almost skeletal state and yet a renovation started last year.
If the Rault Center had sprinklers tragedy could have averted, but I don't believe a wood building could have contained the fire. A wood building certainly couldn't have stood neglected for decades after and still been of any use.
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_9ca3a457...
Many contemporary building codes require sprinklers for any building over four stories. To me, the neglect is a sign of economic conditions effecting development more than other factors. For example, if the location was highly desirable and the market for new space strong, redevelopment would make sense.
Yea, I don't buy those as being sound arguments. I'm sorry I don't just accept everything in a sales pitch. I've seen a log cabin burn, and those were 12" logs, so....
There are no termites in colder climates. The material can be coated to precent any insect from eating it. If you think avout what happened in New York 15 years ago today one might argue steel and concrete burn just as well as wood
Neither steel nor concrete burn under ordinary circumstances. Wood does. We do not know what exactly happened in New York, and it does not seem relevant here.
Highlighting something in an article that shows that a poster clearly hasn't read some or all of the article is "insinuating", and seems to be widely accepted. (And why not - a counter argument based directly on the source material seems perfectly reasonable.)
Maybe the guidelines need to change to say not directly call it out, which is what you seem to be objecting to.
So downvote and say "the article mentions that" with a relevant quote (as per the guidelines). Commenting with "did you read the article?" is just noise.
There are too many "No, that's wrong"'s here for a bunch of people that aren't getting this quite correct. You do not need root access to install a rootkit, you simply need to exploit a security flaw that allows you to install, run, and avoid detection. This is easiest done by modifying the host to disable it's ability to even find you on the device. This is much more difficult on modern systems, so for most modern systems, they're installed as trojans using the privilege escalation of another application or install.
The connotation difference is the difference between getting hit with a 10mm and a 9mm. Negligible, as it's leaving a hole that you really don't want there.
I don't like the use of backdoor for malicious cracks, as it confuses the argument between malware and bad security practices. Though technically, backdoor is the correct term.
Over a thousand users; I wouldn't consider that popular. There are 6 times more people dying every hour than total number of users in those channels. And many of those probably overlap.
Tell that to all those ISPs doing DPI and injecting crap and ads in unencrypted http. Or hotels running captive portals. Or your employer doing org-wise TLS MITM and logging.
Unethical? Most certainly! A crime? Could be depending on what was done and in what jurisdiction, but far from certain.
Honestly, it is arguable that the user actually agreed to monitoring and in-flow data modification knowingly, and therefore it might constitute an Unconscionable Contract due to an Unfair Surprise (again, depending on jurisdiction).
That is assuming the user did actually agree to anything.
Now what if the exit operator put up a ToS themselves stating users of their exit node will be monitored and/or data flowing through their services might be modified on route even? Because, after all, it is the TOR users using their services, not the other way round.
"You hereby grant Tor Exit Operator Ltd, A Nigerian Prince/Russian Business Network joint venture, the right to monitor, log, modify all data you transmit to our service and an irrevocable, unlimited license to use any data you transmit for any purpose".
Tor noob here: How are exit nodes actually assigned to end-users though? So far my understanding was that the assignment happens automatically without any conscious descision by the end-user. If that's true, construing an "agreement" would be pretty hard - if the user isn't even aware they're using your service.
Same reason shady companies still at least need to make it look like they asked your agreement and can't just state "by looking into our general direction you transfer ownership of all your worldly possessions to us"
The whole point is that these things aren't illegal on you own network if you disclose it to the user. Network monitoring and traffic modification aren't illegal in and of themselves.
Consider this. If I just take your car from your driveway, that's stealing. But if you first sign a contract transferring ownership of your car to me, it's very obviously not stealing.
If by "to agree" you mean "clicking something away that nobody ever reads in order to be able to use something for which you've already paid" or "silently assuming that some hotel's house regulations that nobody ever reads does not contain a clause that allows them to tap into your private communications", then I guess you're technically right. Somewhat.
Cash only businesses. Family, friends all eat there for free, like grandma's kitchen used to be. They gotta eat anyway, and it fills out a restaurant. The busier, the more you pad. Give options of top shelf scotches, etc... A guy is celebrating and wants table service, you provide that. Strip clubs, etc... Easy easy ways to either hide what's coming in, or pad what's coming in. Food trucks are brilliant for this, though stretching the definition of restaurant.
Yes, that would be pretty good. In the right kind of city. Buy a fleet of used food trucks. Pay someone to stick some labels on them. Find what local food trucks pay for produce and maintenance. Maybe ask some friend to drive them around town.
The only problem then is other food trucks would notice this fleet of trucks always driving around yet never stopping to sell anything.
They could sell something really simple -- just hotdogs. And it would be funny, other honest ones would see this plain hotdog business growing and expanding like crazy while they sell organic Korean bbq and don't seem to break even. So they go and expand into the plain hotdog market to capture some of the profits and then realize how unlucky they are when nothing sells. That's a plot of a short movie right there.
I don't know what the parent comment had in mind, but here's why I think it's a dumb move: the EU just announced to the world that they can override the decisions of the member countries retroactively and at will.
If you want to invest in something in an EU country, you might calculate the taxes due on your investment before deciding if the investment is suitably profitable. With this decision, you now have an unexpected new risk factor to take into account: the EU bureaucracy may retroactively change your tax rate. That means uncertainty of payout, therefore the investment has a lower payout, therefore you are less likely to invest in an EU country.
It wasn't "just now". The rule against privileging single companies is a rule of the Treaty of Rome. Which was first signed in 1957. And by Ireland in 1973. Also the recovery of unlawful state aid is nothing new but established practice.
A better way of minimizing your risk factor would be hiring tax lawyers who know the rules of the EU Single Market. Which makes Cook's comments so baffling: Apple should have known that there is a possibility of a crackdown.
And Apple just got punished for what Ireland did, and is paying Ireland for the privilege. This makes dealing with EU countries a much more problematic venture. Countries trying to improve their economy can't introduce new legislation without it being suspect. Also, Europe was benefitting from that money. Moves like this will cause American companies to repatriate their money so the EU doesn't decide to come up with another number when they are looking to balance a budget item. How do we pay for all of these refuges? Sue American companies...
The EU just ruled that Ireland's tax system was effectively a state subsidy, and thus not allowed under EU tax law. They've told Apple to pay Ireland €12bn.
Ireland is, apparently, trying to appeal this ruling.
