So starting with nothing at all, what is the total cost of ownership for the flea -cope? My guess, its over $300, (if $300 is your annual salary, your existing phone will probably not cut it). And for comparison, standalone toy oscilloscopes (<10Mhz bandwidth) go for $30 and under (some $11), with screen, on AliExpress. And a "decent" one, like OWON, is around $150.
The problem is, with a toy scope, you aren't really gonna know if what you're measuring is real. This might be useful as a kit to build to learn how to program microcontrollers, or measure audio signals (the $11 one, or the mic on your phone can do this), but a bad scope will generally cause more problems for the hobbyist. When you get near the limit of a scope's bandwidth, the signals get really messy and full of artifacts. Arduinos run at 8-16Mhz, so you're gonna hit a wall really quickly and once you can't rely on the output, the investment will be lost.
Where's that guess coming from? The scope is $18, the optional probe from elecrow is $5 extra. You most definitely have either an android phone or a laptop/PC with a browser from the last ten years already. As such the cost is pretty minimal.
Say you bought a set of these kind of test probes with hooks at the front. A set would maybe cost you $10. Now you can use all your 9 channels.
I don't understand your price calculations.
Every scope out there has an upper limit in terms of speed. If you have no use for it, don't buy it. This oscilloscope is first and foremost a learning resource.
"This is a very strong first world POV. Those U$D 300 rank pretty high across world's minimum salaries "
My point, since I was replying to a poster who said the above, was if you are making $300 a year, you don't have a laptop. So, if you read my assumption, that you don't have a laptop, android phone or laptop, and you are making < $1000 USD a year, the Flea-Scope will cost more than a decent one with a built in display and much more than a ~2mhz toy intro oscilloscope ($11 on Aliexpress) [1]
I could also very well reply with just the quote above.
Its unfortunate that the author is using VGA signals on LCD displays as "retro". I remember well my first experience using a LCD monitor for work. It was for my first "Silicon Valley" job in 1999 and it was a 15" 1024x768 one, perhaps a ViewSonic. The CTO of the company I was working for was pushing them as it was the "new thing". I requested a 19 inch Trinitron instead as the text was blurry with the VGA input and hurt my eyes, where as my Sony at home was noticeably sharper. I continued using CRTs up until probably 2005 (including a 21" Sony that weighed > 100lbs), it was at that time I got a graphics card with DVI output. At that point, I switched to a 20" Dell LCD and never looked back.
tldr; VGA always looked like crap on most LCDs, imho they were almost unusable until DVI.
But it's not easy to tell what one's looking at if one doesn't already understand the system, and conditions of "extreme danger" (which is what my phone told me about half an hour ago) are not a good moment to figure these out.
The "Pacific Tsunami Warning Center" is in Hawaii, which is why it is mentioned at the start of the message. Did you by chance just misread this? See the page below:
And yet every paint manufacturer has hundreds of swatches of various colors that their paint 'comes in', even though there is practically an infinite possibility of colors available.
I've seen many custom JIRA workflows, where you define specific states that can progress to other states. Nearly all of them, over time, were modified so that any state can move to any other state.
And if you engineers don't use the tool you provide, the data in it is useless. Engineers are typically very smart and will just twist any tool they don't like.
Declaration: In order to have accurate state between projects and bugs, everything needs to be tracked in JIRA.
Result: 70% of your Jira stories are now
"This JIRA tracks an issue stored in the Github repo, see the repo for current status"
I think the point was that you aren't being "charged" with using Tor, you are being charged with buying drugs online. You have Tor installed and unfortunately a very small percentage of people have Tor installed. That might be enough to convince a jury, or be enough pressure for you to plead down to a lower crime to reduce that risk.
There first has to be some actual evidence that you were buying drugs online. If the cops search you and find drugs, it isn't going to matter a lot one way or the other whether you have Tor installed.
If you weren't actually buying drugs online then there shouldn't be any evidence that you were (or the cops planted it and then we're back to it not really mattering whether you have Tor installed). And then what are they charging you with that would even make it to a jury instead of being dismissed by the judge for lack of evidence?
Drugs are sent to you and intercepted. You claim, though your lawyer, someone was just using your house as a drop and you have no idea who ordered them. They get your computer, you have Tor installed. Prosecutor argues Tor is only used for CP and drugs. Is that enough to convict? Maybe.
If Tor was ubiquitous obviously not, but its very niche, and looking at a chart of use, its pretty much only used for drugs and CP. There are privacy use cases, but just like using crypto as a currency and not a speculative gambling investment, its in the small minority of uses.
The trouble is that the alternative is worse. They come to your house, you don't have Tor installed and then, because you haven't been using Tor, they pull your search history and trawl through it looking for things to take out of context.
Why did you do multiple searches for std::vector? Are you worried about sharing needles? You also read an article about caffeine, which is often used as a cutting agent. You've been participating in internet discussions about using Tor, which the prosecutor argues is only used for CP and drugs.
> If Tor was ubiquitous obviously not, but its very niche, and looking at a chart of use, its pretty much only used for drugs and CP.
Nobody really knows what Tor is used for, by design. But the media likes to rile people up, and "Tor used by privacy activists to read Facebook" isn't a headline that does that.
It's all too easy to lie with statistics. For example, some people have looked at which hidden services are most often looked up. That's not going to tell you about real usage, because bots do lookups at a much faster rate than real people, and government agencies run automated crawlers. Then you get statistics that say a significant percentage of the lookups are for CP and drugs, but not what percentage of those lookups were made by law enforcement running crawlers 24/7 specifically looking for CP and drugs.
> "In countries coded as 'free', the percentage of users visiting Onion/Hidden Services as a proportion of total daily Tor use is nearly twice as much or ~7.8 percent."
> In other words, people living in liberal democracies are more likely to exploit the dark web for malicious purposes, whereas users living under repressive regimes in non-democratic countries might be more likely to use Tor to circumvent local censorship restrictions and access free information on the internet.
Tor is used to bypass censorship. This use case happens more often in countries where there is censorship, and less often in countries where there isn't, because obviously. Reaching from there to "people living in liberal democracies are more likely to exploit the dark web for malicious purposes" is ridiculous. A higher ratio of B to A because of a smaller need for A does not imply a greater occurrence of B.
Yes, all good. My point was that you aren't being charged with having Tor in the scenario that was described. The existence of Tor on your computer might work as connecting the user to a drug sale.
And what I'm getting at is that in that circumstance, not using Tor is worse, because at that point they have a weak case but are now searching your residence to backfill their case with whatever circumstantial innuendo they can dredge up from a fishing expedition. If you've actually been using Tor then they get less of your browser history and are deprived of material to take out of context. Instead they're left with only the rhetorical argument you propose, which is still weak.
I remember reading on here years ago that people were concerned that the government was reading their "private" emails. I've always just considered email to be sent in plain text. Just 10 years ago only 30% of emails from Gmail were encrypted. Even though now its 99% of outgoing email is encrypted, but all those emails sent before are probably sitting in a database somewhere. And it still reverts to unencrypted if the recipient doesn't support TLS.
Considering Crowdstrike mentioned in their blog that systems that had their 'falcon sensor' installed weren't affected [1], and the update is falcon content, I'm not sure it was a malformed file, but just software that required this sensor to be installed. Perhaps their QA only checked if the update broke systems with this sensor installed, and didn't do a regression check on windows systems without it.
It says that if a system isn’t “affected”, meaning it doesn’t reboot in a loop, then the “protection” works and nothing needs to be done. That’s because the Crowdstrike central systems, on which rely the agents running on the clients’ systems, are working well.
The “sensor” is what the clients actually install and run on their machines in order to “use Crowdstrike”.
The crash happened in a file named csagent.sys which on my machine was something like a week old.
I was thinking, this doesn't seem like its a case of all these machines still on an old version of windows, or some specific version, that is having issues. Therefore QA just missed one particular variant in their smoke testing. It seems like its every windows instance with that software, so either they don't have basic automated testing, or someone pushed this outside of a normal process.
The problem is, with a toy scope, you aren't really gonna know if what you're measuring is real. This might be useful as a kit to build to learn how to program microcontrollers, or measure audio signals (the $11 one, or the mic on your phone can do this), but a bad scope will generally cause more problems for the hobbyist. When you get near the limit of a scope's bandwidth, the signals get really messy and full of artifacts. Arduinos run at 8-16Mhz, so you're gonna hit a wall really quickly and once you can't rely on the output, the investment will be lost.
reply