i like to know when microsoft going stop montoring our computers, and takeing files that they no right to

do u know how impossable it is to disable windows tracking. most u think just moveing few setting u done, currently there is over 100 gpo settings that must be eather turn on of off, then gpo must be appled to computer, forget firewall microsoft servers are hardcoded in the os, u must disable all task,in trasmiting information, go to regisitery disable termaml server setting start up to 4 and if this not enouf u have block access to rdp, ftp as on all computers there is a active ftp server weather or not u installed it and a acktive http server, now we have other probems remote cmd, remote power shell. all office sends out to microsoft servers, currently there over 7000 data centers that some share with apple and cisco, microsoft will take passwords user names and encription certifices i have logs showing they do just this, that they tied linux in to windows was better way to access bouth os, as there servers gose on and off line takeing bits of infomraiton, over time they can vr your hole system and wach all u do and they do have abuilt to wach what u do and recored it, micrsofot admited to hacking with nsa they was supose to remove remote desktop but the move past this they found new way accessing all the computers, worse is nsa not only ones gets all your information, most gose to chana u all did know most all the code is writen in chana so is apple and cisco, and we ask why is it so easy to get hack, these busness would never pay to have a hack proof software as i did offer a way for them to do it, that system would be totaly trasparnet, but then microsoft could not get the files eather, so how beat microsoft at there own game, what i do is find microsoft certifices and remove remote access and access to the encraption system and to athenacattion, but they can target any server or pc, and sence they recored what u do they undo just about anything, so why trust micrsoft now i can prove microsoft did for two years target my network, i do have logs to prove it, was no hacker and microsoft them selfs said yes they was on my network logs prove it , as they work with cisco becomes hard to block them , now i like know why micrsooft keeps changeing sercruty settings on my network i do have there remote login certifices and ip address and they montor all gpo set ups why, u all have no right to this informaton so why are u takeing it, so again why trust microsoft

[ Politics ] Open Question : Why did Rush Limbaugh tell his listeners on Feb 24, 2020: “I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.”?

Isn’t that both misleading and dangerous? Could he lose his broadcast license for endangering the public in this way? Responding to Kathy is a Nurse: Thanks, I would believe that 1% (and dropping) mortality rate.  As hospitals get more experience, they improve treatment, and so mortality drops.  On the other hand, mortality from a bad flu like 2017-18 was 75,000/45,000,000 = 0.16%, so isn’t COVID-19 more dangerous than the flu and far more dangerous than the common cold? More to Kathy:  Also, the media has been saying 2% mortality, which was the early official rate, even if it may now be down to 1%.  Given those facts, it more dangerous to report double the mortality rate, 2%, or to report 0.001% as Rush Limbaugh did?  I think Limbaugh’s claim is worse. The CDC disagrees with Limbaugh https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html  “What is a novel coronavirus?” “The virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not that same as the coronaviruses that commonly circulate among humans and cause mild illness, like the common cold.”

Is my Quicken Shadows spell the right level?

I have designed this spell:

Quicken Shadows

5th level necromancy

Casting Time: 1 action

Range: 90 ft

Components: V S

Duration: Instantaneous

Classes: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

The shadows of your enemies are animated and turn against their owners. Choose up to ten humanoids that you can see in range. A shadow (CR 1/2) appears in an unoccupied space next to them and immediately begins attacking them. These shadows disappear if their owner is killed. Also, if their owner is killed, no new shadows rise from the corpse.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 5th.

I currently have it listed as 5th level. Is this appropriate? Similar 4th level spells only summon 4 CR 1/2 creatures, while this one can summon up to ten. But this one can only summon Shadows. Also it can only summon one per enemy.

Would the following curse be too detrimental, too beneficial, or just right for a combat-focused campaign?

The Curse:

Clockwork Curse
All Attack Rolls the cursed target makes replace their d20 roll with a 10 instead of rolling, as per the effect of Clockwork Amulet.

Extra Details:

  • This curse is expected to apply for at least a full in-game day.
  • Encounters for the day will come from the Forest or Coastal Encounters (5-10) tables in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
  • The character will be part of a 5-player group.
  • The character’s attacks are their ideal method of dealing damage.

The Goal:

  • This curse is meant to be a setback or gameplay-shift to the player, not a crippling of the player.
    • I want the player to spend time affected by the curse to work with it or work around it.
  • Since the players can decide not to remove it, the beneficial aspect of it should not be too strong.

The Question:

Is this curse too detrimental that it imposes more of a penalty than I expect? Is this curse too beneficial in the long-run? Or is it reasonably fair?

Who is this person in the right corner at the floor?

I know this question has little to do with security excuse me for this.

I lost my phone. Because I wan’t to track the person who now has the phone, I’m trying to contact my phone anyway. But I see something strange.

Who is this person I see in the right corner at the bottom? Would this be the person on the other side now owning my phone?

Thanks

enter image description here

Is it possible to keep weights of left and right subtree at each node of BST that has duplicate values?


Is it possible to keep weights of left and right subtree at each node of BST that has duplicate values?

I must be able to delete a node completely(irrespective of how many times it is present)

Currently, in my code, I am keeping count variable in each node that records the number of times it is present in tree.

During insertion, I can increase the size of left and right subtree weight at each node according to if my value is less or more. but how do I adjust the weights when I delete a node(because I may delete a node with count >1)

Bluetooth LE with Secure Connection and static passkey: This is a bad idea, right?

I am currently looking into how to protect a BLE connection from active attacks (man-in-the-middle) if one of the devices neither has a display nor a keyboard.

Lemberg Solutions suggests this:

Alternatively, the passcode can be shipped together with the devices (on paper or as part of an online purchase), and the user should then manually input it to each separate device.

This can only mean that one device (device A) (most likely one without a keyboard and without a display) has a passkey embedded in the device somewhere. So it is static. This static passkey is also used by the other device (device B) (e.g. entered using keyboard input, via camera, …). The same passkey will be used every time BLE pairing is established with device A.

Am I understanding their suggestion correctly?

My understanding of Secure Connections with passkey is, that each device does the following for each bit of the passkey:

  • create a nonce
  • calculate a confirmation value using: nonce, passkey[i], SK
  • exchange the confirmation values with the other device (send own, receive other)
  • exchange the nonces (send own, receive other)
  • check that the confirmation value of the other device is correct If one of the checks fails, the connection is dropped.

In the case of a man-in-the-middle attack, the attacker can figure out the passkey by “brute-forcing” each bit. After all, there are only two possibilities for each bit.

This is not harmful for the current connection, because the attacker is “too late” to use the passkey. And it is not harmful if a different passkey is used for the next connection. But this is fatal if another connection is made using the same passkey (which is going to happen if a static passkey is used).

So, after the attacker listened to the pairing attempt, she interrupts the connection (e.g. right after the last set of nonces was transmitted). Now she only has to wait until the next connection attempt is made. She can now hijack the whole connection.

Is my assessment of this situation correct and the static passkey is a bad idea or am I overlooking something?

How do I join getting one row from the left table, no matter how many matches i get from the right table?

I have two tables – one is a data table and the other is a mapping table. I want to join them together, but only preserve the data from the right table. However, it is possible that the match table may contains multiple records that match to a single record in the right table. I cannot use a DISTINCT because there may be identical rows in the right table, and I want to preserve the same number of rows from the right-table in the result set.

Here is a sample of the data I am working with:

       DataTable                           MappingTable +-----+-----+-----+-----+           +------+------+------+------+ | ID1 | ID2 | ID3 | ID1 |           | ID1  | ID2  | ID3  | ID1  | +-----+-----+-----+-----+           +------+------+------+------+ |  1  |  1  |  1  |  1  |           |  1   | NULL | NULL | NULL | |  1  |  1  |  1  |  1  |           | NULL | NULL | NULL |  1   | |  2  |  1  |  1  |  1  |           |  3   |  3   | NULL | NULL | |  3  |  1  |  1  |  3  |           +------+------+------+------+ |  4  |  1  |  1  |  4  | |  2  |  2  |  1  |  1  | |  3  |  2  |  1  |  3  | |  3  |  3  |  1  |  3  | |  2  |  1  |  0  |  1  | |  2  |  1  |  0  |  1  | |  4  |  3  |  2  |  3  | +-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

Below is the join I am using. I wrote a custom function to handle the NULL-matching behavior, which I am including here as well.

SELECT * FROM DataTable P JOIN MappingTable M ON dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(P.ID1,M.ID1,0,1) = 1     AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(P.ID2,M.ID2,0,1) = 1     AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(P.ID3,M.ID3,0,1) = 1     AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(P.ID4,M.ID4,0,1) = 1 

CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS (     @Value1 INT     ,@Value2 INT     ,@AutoMatchIfValue1IsNull BIT     ,@AutoMatchIfValue2IsNull BIT )     RETURNS BIT AS  BEGIN      DECLARE @Result BIT = 0      SELECT         @AutoMatchIfValue1IsNull = ISNULL(@AutoMatchIfValue1IsNull,0)         ,@AutoMatchIfValue2IsNull = ISNULL(@AutoMatchIfValue2IsNull,0)      IF         (@AutoMatchIfValue1IsNull = 1 AND @Value1 IS NULL)         OR (@AutoMatchIfValue2IsNull = 1 AND @Value2 IS NULL)         OR @Value1 = @Value2         OR (@Value1 IS NULL AND @Value2 IS NULL)     BEGIN         SET @Result = 1     END      RETURN @Result END 

The problem with the way the join works is that the first two rows in the DataTable match on the first two rows in the MappingTable, giving me four identical records in the result, but I only want 2. I know that I could add an identity column to the DataTable and then use DISTINCT or PARTITION to get the result I am looking for, but I would like to avoid that route if possible.

EDIT: I figured out a way to do this using EXISTS, but it looks a little ugly in my opinion. Still interested in other answers if anyone has an idea. Thanks!

SELECT * FROM DataTable D WHERE EXISTS (     SELECT D.ID1, D.ID2, D.ID3, D.ID4     FROM MappingTable M      WHERE dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(D.ID1,M.ID1,0,1) = 1         AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(D.ID2,M.ID2,0,1) = 1         AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(D.ID3,M.ID3,0,1) = 1         AND dbo.fNullMatchCheckIntS(D.ID4,M.ID4,0,1) = 1 )