February 2010 - Hebridean hedgehogs: a prickly issue
The Uists cull has already cost more than £1m, but we should question the causal link between bird and hedgehog populations
Also: Australia's efforts against the cane toad, invasive fish species all over the world introduced by humans for "sport", Florida's efforts against the Burmese python (which has become the dominant predator - even swallowing local adult alligators).
> invasive fish species all over the world
> introduced by humans for "sport"
Not just for "sport," IIRC there are some invasive species in the Mississippi River that got there when one of the floods engulfed some fish farms/hatcheries that had some exotic fish there to help maintain pests/algae/etc.
Also, Florida has a lot of iguanas (which are non-native), especially in the Everglades, you just don't hear much about it because the pythons are a larger issue.
Most people wouldn't ever upload anything illegal directly anyway. They compress it, split it up and then put a password on the whole thing. Theres no way to tell whats in the files then. MegaUpload was already going way beyond DMCA by letting them delete everything per their wishes.
Either they created more bandwidth where there is none or this is really an announcement how their app can now do uploads in parallel. Woohoo! You finished the tutorial level, you may continue.
So what you're saying is that you should save the 10$ from the 15$ you pay for a Cortex and instead spend many many days to end up with a outlandishly slow solution?
I take it this is supposed to inspect network traffic, at some point you need some raw throughput.
I don't know where you got those numbers from. The savings difference (after buying the needed hardware for networking, etc. for the non-comprehensive solution) would be along the lines of a hundred dollars (if not closer to 150).
You can claim your DUI was a mistake, a blunder, an oversight on your part, but that won't save you from a conviction. There apparently seem to be no such consequences when the government decides to shut down and possibly kill a business by suspending the domain.
> "Your ISP (network administrator, ..) is intercepting and manipulating DNS requests. Do you want to use Google DNS instead?"
I would prefer
"Your ISP (network administrator, ..) is intercepting and manipulating DNS requests. Do you want to install a local caching DNS server and use it instead?"
Unbound [1] is a local DNS server that I have installed on all my machines. Small, fast, security-oriented, IPv6, BSD, made by NLnet Labs.
The grandparent said "use Google DNS" not "chrome doing its own DNS lookup".
If you use Google's DNS (or anybody's DNS) you are basically telling them which sites your are visiting. If you have a local DNS resolver you will not leak all that information to a single third party.
I don't understand. Your local DNS resolver still needs an upstream; either that is your existing broken DNS server, or it's google's DNS server; in either case we're back where we were. Sure, your local DNS resolver could do some caching, but so could chrome; and a local resolver doesn't combine your lookups with those of your neighbours, so you don't get any privacy advantage that way either.
> I don't understand. Your local DNS resolver still needs an upstream
No, not a single upstream.
When my browser asks my server on 127.0.0.1 to lookup news.ycombinator.com it will first contact the root DNS server, then `com` DNS server, then then `ycombinator.com` DNS server. Who knows about the fact that I was looking for `news.ycombinator.com`? only the `ycombinator.com` DNS server. Who knows about the fact that I was looking for `ycombinator.com`? only the `com` DNS server. Now I go to slashdot.org. Who will know about that? Only the `org` DNS server. If you use the Google DNS, Google will know that you requested both `news.ycombinator.com` and `slashdot.org`. Do you want them or any single company to have all these information?
Obviously you need an upstream, an authoritative server somewhere. But why do you need to concentrate all these requests on a single DNS server? ISP are actively tracking users and, probably, selling their DNS histories to advertiser. Nominum (makers of a widespread DNS server) is quite explicit about it: «Data gathering and measurement are a vital part of network operations and DNS data represents a rich vein to be mined that has been underutilized in the past». [1]
So you'd contact the root server directly? If that's really desirable behavior (and I suspect it isn't), why not just make chrome query the root servers and walk the hierarchy, not using a DNS server at all?
They have ruined security for everyone by allowing government agencies (they didn't even bother to setup a front) and other questionable entities on that list. The correct response is not to send out a nice letter asking everyone to please give up crucial business information, but to kick everyone off that list and start over.
