Slashdot Mirror

You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.

From Wired:

Grills was in the kitchen with Drew and Sarah, Lori Drew's then-13-year-old daughter, when she proposed creating a fake MySpace account to get information on Megan. Drew applauded the plan, and thought it was funny, but did not herself conceive it, Grills said.
The three of them crowded around Drew's computer as Grills set up the account. None of the three read MySpace's terms-of-service first, said Grills. As Grills began, Lori and Sarah Drew left for soccer practice, urging Grills to finish up in their absence.

That's a little different than saying "she may have been aware the account was created". Also,

Over the course of the 28 days the Josh Evans account was active, Lori Drew helped craft messages sent to Meier, Grills said, and assumed the Evans identity directly for at least one short exchange, when Grills messaged Meier and wound up talking with her mother instead. Tina Meier testified previously that she wrote "Josh" that she thought he should focus on kids his own age. Josh replied, "I understand."

I'd be willing to downgrade her from "primary actor" to "willing participant", but I don't think you can say she was only partially involved.

oh, they must have used highly advanced software to detect the minute discrepancies between lighting angles. it must have taken a team of experts several weeks to uncover the fraud.

this seems like typical nationalistic BS, but it's really not any worse than the kind of stuff you see in magazines or the kind of audience manipulation TV networks like Fox and CNN do on a regular basis. i'd be more worried about Army psy-ops "interning" at CNN or NPR.

addictions to games IS a problem. Games need to be MODERATED, not played willy-nilly by uncontrolled kids and adults.

Kids maybe but adults?
I take it you're in the "it's for your own good" camp. Where you can decide what I do with my life based purely on what you think is "good" for me.
You have no right at all to stop me sitting playing any game I choose until I develop blood clots in my brain and die.
It is a minor problem. It's in not your problem. Run your own life, let others run theirs.

as for violent games:
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/04/gaming-real-vio.html
"The graph makes no direct claims towards a relationship between real world and gaming violence, though it's interesting to see an inversely proportional trend of violent gaming releases and incidents of real crime."

I have to agree entirely. Hilary lost because she insisted on being in the spotlight for years leading up the the campaign; this is the main reason her supporters and haters were so divided. The problem with this was, all the usual campaign hand-waiving and distractions can't change the mind of voters who made up their minds years before.

She lost my vote early on when she revealed her true colors as a censorship machine. First she tried to to censor video games for violence at the federal level (thankfully, it failed to garner support). Then she promised if elected that she would protect us from computer-generated porn and violence.

Sure, this got her the over-protective mom vote, but the rest of the rational people in this country realized how stupid this all was. A person with this kind of "censor everything" agenda would only grab for more if you gave an inch. It was more than enough for me to vote against her.

Well at least in your article from 2000 the system was under development, the 2005 article I quoted from Wired had Water Security (the company that commercialized the technology) toting the system around in a Toyota pickup and using it in a foot powered configuration and taking it to villages in Iraq that had no clean water.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/urine.html

So the system was viable in 2005, not just under development like it was in 2000. Its the years from 2005 to now that should concern you, though some of those years they weren't flying the shuttle. Who knows if this thing would fit on a Soyuz or Progress module.

Don't aspire to malice and all that

Wired did an article on this tech in August of 2005, and the estimate was that it sanitized water at a rate of 5 gallons per minute for 3 cents per gallon.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/urine.html

Likewise NASA funded this because they spent $60 million over 5 years sending fresh water into space at a cost of $40,000 per gallon. It should cut the volume of water sent to the ISS by two thirds.

I have been waiting for them to finally deploy this tech, and IIRC this predated Dean Kamen's water filtering system as well.

Hmm, she should go big time.
It was done years ago.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision.html

Check that out. Wetware. Ya .. Rly!

Particularly female anatomy. Who better than another female to work such things out?

It's important dammit!

But it works by having the phone do speech recognition while being held at arms length. That way you can have multi-modal communication and it not simply speech replacing pointing, but having them work together, using each modality for what it's good for. Here's a link to an article: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/07/att-developing.html The idea of using the phones accelerometer is a great idea. In AT&T's demo you need to "click to talk", which makes sense for their design, but the accelerometer idea is pretty nifty if you just have speech responses. Using the display is good for many things though, e.g. for maps, long lists. I'm thinking it could be a pain to have to hold the phone up to your ear over and over: hold it up to your ear, speak, look at the display, (speak again if something was misrecognized), (possibly click something), hold it up to hor ear, speak, look at the display, etc. -- Why procrastinate now when you could procrastinate tomorrow.

Must be a slow news cycle. "Snow World" and its use in burn therapy was covered in WIRED over 7 years ago? See: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/03/42084

Ha ha... yes, I read the news.

Oh, and regarding GP post: yes, troll, but the sort of troll that I find amusing to no end. That's just my sense of humour, I guess.

P.S: Good show. I moderated you funny, FWIW.

What makes it fair for him to be charged twice for the same crime?

RTFA - he's not being charged twice for the same crime. He is being added as a defendant to another, seperate crime. What's unfair about being charged for every crime you commit?

But what most people seem to be missing is the sheer stupidity of the criminal. If a company I had hacked into, stolen source code from, and embarrassed publicly suddenly invited me to their corporate HQ in a foreign country, I would be a weee bit suspcious.

According to the article he was suspicious, he didn't actually show up in the USA and so they didn't catch him.

Perhaps you can't really trust this guy, but from reading the article it sounds as if he'd contacted them initially to claim that he'd hacked their network but hadn't leaked the source, and that someone else was responsible for it after he leaked the login info by accident. From there they struck up a conversation and invited him over, and he might have actually thought they were genuinely interested in employing him.

In hindsight it seems quite stupid to assume that, but if the guy's young and hasn't encountered many corporate dinosaurs. Some hackers just like breaking into things out of interest and think they're doing a service if they show people how to fix it later. He might have expected to be treated the same way that any of his friends would have treated him if he told them about security holes in their system.

Wired had posted a really detailed article on where Red is in its September issue. You can read it here - http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera?currentPage=all

Peter Jackson loved the camera so much that he suggested Steven Soderbergh to use it for his new movie on Che Guevara...which he has made now. So definitely it is not vaporware.

Still, DSMC is a whole new ball game.

Could be something like this:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/army-removes-pa.html

http://www.rense.com/general37/skull.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/vts.html

"One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports."

Scarecrow for birds? They really had to stretch to come up with something more innocuous eh? ;).

I'm predicting that Google's flu tracker is going to end up being used as an argument in favor of a federal data retention mandate if it turns out to be successful for the CDC. While DHS may have recently shown that datamining doesn't work on terrorists, I'll bet that it would certainly work on certain classes of other criminals like sex offenders. How long before the DoJ starts down this path by saying, "hey Google, why don't you keep an eye on suspicious searches for us, and let us know if someone reaches a threshold of $X searches/month so we can see if they're bad dudes banging little kids." The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Think I'm paranoid? Then explain why the USA PATRIOT Act was ready to go so soon after 9-11. It's not like they were just waiting for a justification to present it to Congress...

From 2007
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/2273_human_scen.html
From 2006:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002329.html

I believe the East German Stasi were doing for several decades...

Seriously, everyone in the Slashdot crowd needs to read Wired.

Welcome to 15 yrs ago.

Stupid ideas like that eventually fail, and they will fail even more given America's changing political climate.

SCO, for example. Good for Microsoft that they had nothing to do with that fiasco...

oh, wait.

OMG we're doomed!!!!

This might interest you then - http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/vista-service-p.html

According to this article, that 10% figure applies to people who've inherited a single gene that confers reduced susceptibility, not immunity. To get immunity, you need to inherit the gene from both parents.

And peoples descended from them, are immune, smaller percentages from central asia.

I'll be really interested to see if this result can be replicated.

I'll be really interested to see if this DONOR can be replicated.

I've been expecting something like this ever since the discovery of HIV-immune individuals. So yes, the donor can be replicated.

Maybe I missed something, but how is this impressive?

Considering that there are commercial cameras on the market that have resolutions of 50+ megapixels for "just" $40,000 (not much for professional scientists or astronomers). It seems like a fairly simple thing to modify for use in the UV spectrum (maybe that's the part we are supposed to be impressed with?).

Perhaps they meant gigapixels?

Well, I don't know about you folks. But I think the persons qualifications should be other than a Masters in plant science. It seems our great protector from all things evil feels such a degree is sufficient to deal with technological security issues. Frankly, I think the person should be lower in the food chain than from the Cxx level of management. I am sure we, or most of us can recant many boneheaded decisions made by management types to the consternation of the IT guy who said, no don't do it that way, but management did anyway. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/dhs-security-ch.html

While everyone in the computer industry, and I would even go so far as to say, as a result - everyone in the world - owes Bill Joy a huge debt for his contributions to the world, I think it would be unfortunate if he were appointed to such an office.
And I find myself sad to say that.

But...
Most people will remember that he has demonstrated a serious degree of pessimism prior in his Wired OpEd, "Why the future doesn't need us".

The debate this sparked result in Joy being quoted and interviewed many times. His decidedly dim view of unchecked technological advancement became quite clear.
He has openly endorsed the idea of an international body that would have oversight and could control scientific research and experimentation everywhere.

This was rebutted by Freeman Dyson shortly afterward, "The Future Needs Us!".

In Dyson's rebuttal he mentions Milton's speech, Areopagitica, which while an argument for free speech, has strong parallels with regards to scientific inquiry.

While it is frightening the long list of dangerous things that we can do to ourselves and the world, it is also _equally_ exciting and encouraging when these things are applied in a beneficial manner.
We have already experienced, for hundreds of years, a world where scientific inquiry was stifled by various organizations. And in fact, similar organizations today continue to threaten and have even succeed in pushing back research (ex. stem cell research).

It is difficult to see how Bill Joy, given his stated views, would help to bolster us forward both in terms of simple advancement and also with regards to our international competitiveness.

Yeah he wrote that article called Why the future doesn't need us. which basically says we're all doomed to be exterminated by nanotech machines if the singularity happens.

Not really someone I'd refer to as 'hopeful'.

in case anyone cares the article in question: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

You're probably thinking about the 2000 article in Wired, 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', which he said in a 2003 interview was Wired's title, not his.. It was criticized in quite a few places, but there were plenty of people who gave merit to what he was saying.

I think it's wise to understand that there are risks inherent to almost any solution, and no just adopt technology for technology's sake -- look at what happened with the election machines, and those damned flash splash pages in the late 90s. I probably need to re-read his article, as I can't remember most of it, but I don't remember it being as pessimistic as people made it out to be.

You're probably thinking about the 2000 article in Wired, 'Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', which he said in a 2003 interview was Wired's title, not his.. It was criticized in quite a few places, but there were plenty of people who gave merit to what he was saying.

I think it's wise to understand that there are risks inherent to almost any solution, and no just adopt technology for technology's sake -- look at what happened with the election machines, and those damned flash splash pages in the late 90s. I probably need to re-read his article, as I can't remember most of it, but I don't remember it being as pessimistic as people made it out to be.

You mean this?

"I am no apologist for Kaczynski. His bombs killed three people during a 17-year terror campaign and wounded many others. One of his bombs gravely injured my friend David Gelernter, one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Like many of my colleagues, I felt that I could easily have been the Unabomber's next target. Kaczynski's actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it."

Bill Joy doesn't sound that out of line. If you're going to confront terrorists, you need to understand their doctrine and motivation so that you can discredit the entire philosophy, rather than just turn them into martyrs.

Welcome our new, robot overlords!

... then yes. That is almost exactly what the GP is referring to.
With some Amazon's mTurk added over the Google layer.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/geeks-spot-foss.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/373893/internet_users_aid_in_search_for_steve.html

http://innonate.com/2007/09/09/is-this-steve-fossett-the-community-searches/

Ghosts in the Machines

This is not a terribly good thing at this time, they're not prepared.
For those of you that have an understanding:

Below Links: [tagmeme.com]
She's forgotten to pay her SSL certificate fees - click through, it's more than likely 99.999% cool.
See:

http://laughingsquid.net/faq/ssl/

Site:

https://tagmeme.com/exmachina/

Guide to the source archive contents:

https://tagmeme.com/exmachina/a/000177.html

Orinoco-like:

https://tagmeme.com/subhack/a/pcmcia07-051227.txt

It's taken 10 years to find someone else that will talk about their experiences with this hack. It has been named "Subversionhack" or just plain "Subversion".

If you've ever been hit by this you'll soon see that it affects computers with no wireless cards, allowing for Ultra high frequency (UHF, VHF, etc.) receptions (see FCC warning label on your computer) using a techniques of code replacement, i.e. chip crowding or just a plain re-flash of non-flash-able chips. It can also be achieved through kernel kits written in assembly.

This has been so under the radar (no pun intended) for so long people will call you names for just considering it.

Find out for yourself.

Packet Radio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio

Ultra-Wideband:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wideband

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_frequency#United_States_2

Why do you think the Air Force wants to go with custom networking protocols?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/air-force-aims.html

Because they can't beat it.

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/33500#33500

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/33017#33017

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/34206/threaded#34206

http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/34207/threaded#34207

"The VPN isn't, by itself, going to be filtering out phishing emails. And we've graduated from username/passwords some time ago."

The email system would only accept email from identifiably PKI certified senders and while this one uses PKI certificates it hasn't yet graduated off the InterTUBES, as in I can still send malicious packets directly to the server, which if the current infrastructure were adequate then the US Air Force wouldn't be:

".. fed up with a seemingly endless barrage of attacks on its computer networks from stealthy adversaries whose motives and even locations are unclear.. "

Netperger Syndrome: an obsessive compulsion to argue with total stranger over the InterTUBES

I remember reading this article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/strategies.html in the months after 9/11... and the phrase that stuck with me from it, was that the "US will commodify your discontent, sell it back to you on DVD."

At the time I took this to mean that the almost overwhelming cultural power of the United States (I am not American.), would eventually embrace and replace all others, because that would always be the most profitable course of action. While it certainly does mean this in part, watching the ascent of Barack Obama (I would not vote for Mr. Obama.) on a global level has caused me to re-evaluate Mr. Sterling's words.

By electing Obama, I see the ultimate example of the United States co-opting the worlds discontent. Because after his seemingly inevitable election, it's not the United States that will have no more excuses to hide behind, but the rest of the world that will have run out of straw-men to blame for their own, self-made dilemmas.

You wanted the Unites States to be led by 'one of you'? Bam, you got it. Now you can stop blaming the Unites States for all the worlds ills, and take some responsibility for yourselves for a change. That would be most welcome.

May he actually live up to the impossible, messianic expectations... why would any rational person hope otherwise? Make sure to buy the DVD.

I don't understand why people waste money and time doing these kinds of studies. Invariably they depend upon untested, questionable assumptions, such as equating "aggressive" play with violence. And it is all directed toward solving a problem that doesn't exist, because the violence statistics have consistently shown that as games have gotten more realistic and more violent, real-world violence has steadily decreased. In fact, it has decreased most precipitously in the very demographic that is the biggest consumers of videogames. Now of course, this doesn't prove that games don't make people aggressive, or even violent. What it does prove is that the violence-inducing effect of video games, if any, is so small that it is swamped by other social and demographic factors that influence violence.

I've read that it was an IBM engineer who said it. Could be another urban legend.

Anyway, Gates denied saying it: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484 (Oldest link - it's from 1997 - that I could find.)

QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"

ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."

Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.

"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

While it's true you can't "bump" Medeco3 locks and you can't "eyeball" them easily, the photo thing works (I'm not sure but the Shlage Primus looks vulnerable too). http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/medeco-locks-cr.html

I wonder how easy it is to copy the Abloy style keys.

New abloy key: http://www.abloyusa.com/images/execkey.gif

Old: http://www.abloyusa.com/images/classickey.gif

I'm guessing that for the classic key there's a small set of possible angles. If that's true you should be able to easily copy it from a photo (if you can see enough of the angles).

You mean like this, but from 200 feet away?

It's only a matter of time before Google Maps 0wns your keys.

A waste, perhaps. Making money is a dirty business. Take a look at this: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-03/ff_seacowboys?currentPage=all I'm sure there's a statistic somewhere that for every bomb dropped, we feed X amount of our own children. Welcome to reality.

Given that I don't have medical insurance, never have had as an adult, I don't run into that set of perverse disincentives. I'm a cash buyer. I'm enjoying my retirement now in my 40s.

Here's that wired article on 23andme, a google-backed $1000 genetic screening company.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all

Sergey Brin's blog, http://too.blogspot.com/, is about Parkinson's not Huntingdon's, I had those mixed up. But the principle is the same - if I'm at high risk of some rare disease, all I have to do is find a kabillionaire to fund research and I can ride his/her coattails.

If genetic screening showed that I have a high risk of some rare and currently fatal disease, then I refocus to become an expert in that disease and make sure I'm first in line for the beta testing on new treatments or cures.

post is informative but inciteful.

They were largely responsible for the Great Firewall of China.

So I would think that their involvement, as well as that of Nortel and other network gear OEMs, is more desirable than that of Application/OS/Search companies.

They were largely responsible for the Great Firewall of China.

So I would think that their involvement, as well as that of Nortel and other network gear OEMs, is more desirable than that of Application/OS/Search companies.

No, we just pay attention to Congressional Testimony. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908

He's not exactly happy with the arrangement, and neither is google, even though he and everybody else in the senate at the time voted for it.

Here's a clue: If isn't perfect perhaps it's time to emend it to address the problems, such as a stupid anti-circumvention provision that makes it illegal to circumvent protection even if the use is otherwise legal?

He's not exactly happy with the arrangement, and neither is google, even though he and everybody else in the senate at the time voted for it.

Here's a clue: If isn't perfect perhaps it's time to emend it to address the problems, such as a stupid anti-circumvention provision that makes it illegal to circumvent protection even if the use is otherwise legal?

A website's "terms of service" are ... not laws

Tell that to Lori Drew.

I imagine they spend a lot of that energy staying warm. Overheating is apparently a key issue for human athletes (so dumping a bunch of heat to the environment lets the birds work harder):

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore.html

Still pretty impressive.