All of the quality engineering, quality assurance, and quality control measurements should be designed to emulate the real world application of the software to the highest possible degree. Then a company must hire a compentent Quality Team in order to implement and perform the real world test cases. When it is not possible to recreate the actual real world environment due to cost or time, that risk is documented. Then management decides if it is an acceptable risk or if the money and time should be spent on creating that real world environment.
Sadly, they don't teach Quality Engineering as a focused career skill in school. It is always a secondary concern of development. Based on my own 17 years of Quality Engineering career experience as an individual contributor and as a department manager, about 2/3 of the developers I have worked with, are horrible at quality design, etc. That other 1/3 you find are the best developers in the company.
I wasn't directly replying to your single post. More to all the replies in this thread as a whole. I clicked the wrong "reply to this".
But to your point...
I believe that the answers are fairly simple IMHO. I don't have any statistics specific to my claims, just general knowledge. -Supply and demand requires that there are just more users than dealers. -Most users get arrested on drug-related charges due to police contact other than targetted narcotics enforcement. Domestic calls, traffic stops, public intoxication, etc. Users get stopped and searched for whatever reason and drugs turn up so they get arrested. -Dealers tend to be more paranoid less likely to get caught "dirty"
In a side note, according to Law "intent to sell"=dealer and this is based on quantity of controlled substance. So, 1 dealer = many users based on weight. That is the stat I would like to see how much weight is seized from dealers vs users.
Ok. Let's play cops and robbers....or DEA and Silk Road Patrons.
I would contend that the package tracking works two ways. Not just to the destination. Package origin is also documented.
Even if the seller is savvy enough to drop-off packages at various locations, the activity will still create a narrowed package origin. If the seller spends the time to drive to the N closest package drop-off locations. Guess what? You have narrowed down the search quite a bit vs. the previously unknown origin.
All the DEA needs to accomplish this is to place multiple orders over time from a single seller. Backtrack the package with the quite helpful and cooperative shipping company. Create the shipping origin profile. One location=easy. Many locations=less easy. Next the DEA breaks out the tried and true drug-war fighting techniques. Stakeouts? Not yet. Grab available and future drop-off location surveillance video? Of course.
I am guessing that the *Federally* mandated *National* agency might want to put together an investigation effort over some years that would perhaps nab the biggest bust and make the best headlines. Promotions & Raises all around! To this end they stage their drug-sniffing dogs/machines at the regional sorting center for the shipping companies. At some point the seller is going to contaminate the package with the controlled substance. Finding, but letting the drugs continue to ship. Thus, creating a larger more comprehensive list of where the drugs are going. Plus, we get a load of new addresses to monitor as drug buyers. Good luck with your plausible denialbility defense when you received 30 shipments over 2 years. It's sure easy to eliminate the legitimate shipments of drugs from the illicit since the DEA already has a list of approved mail-order pharmacies.
Now they go to work on the mules and seller directly by staking out the drop-off locations with the most activity in the region. They then match video/photographic footage of the drop-off location customers with the date/time stamps that the flagged addresses were sent packages. Presto! Mules and/or Sellers are identified and profiled. It's just a game of Big Fish / Little Fish after that. The DEA flips the middleman and keeps operations up and running leading to the biggest fish in that particular pond.
How much effort was spent on navigating torrents, cracking encryption, and tracking your dozen one time use account bit-coin transfers? Absolutely NONE. Good investigation skills and vast resources still work. The virtual world cannot be isolated from the physical world just yet. At least in this case. Sure, we are all waiting for when we can 3D print pills of any chemical composition at home for the low low price of resin. Lightsabers, Jetpacks, and Null Gravity drives
Maybe/.ers place too much faith in technology. Maybe the DEA and other enforcement agencies are not as backwards and technically inferior as most on/. believe them to be. Of course, I'm sure that within months some Fast & Furious type of botched operation will come to the publics awareness to confirm the stupidity of someone in one of these agencies. That does not exclude those same agencies from having intelligent and diligent people employed.
to have a valid email that was not work related. Two reasons. 1. To sign up for downloads and other stuff on the internet. 2. To look for another job. I have had many work related emails since 1995, but the same my personal Hotmail account. I even have a short and easy username since I signed up so early in the HoTMaiL beta. I upgraded to a Plus account for a year or two, but then didn't seen the need after the free service caught up to my requirements. I have since setup another junk hotmail account for the original purpose of spam honeypot/junkmail collector.
Over the years I have been pleased with the updates Microsoft has implemented to Hotmail to varying degrees. I haven't seen any webmail offerings that compelling enough to leave my hotmail.com account. The current product serves my needs well enough FWIW, I plan to keep on using the account simply because it's so convenient and all my friends know the address. I don't care about the outlook.com domain name. Same way I didn't care about the msn.com domain name.
Who knows maybe someday it will be as cool as my Dad's arpa.net account.
An armed citizenry is (would be) a deterrent and a repercussion to people performing these mass shootings and acts of violence. Look at the old man who prevented a robbery of that internet cafe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU
People types like James Holmes or Jared Loughner who commit these types of crimes are why the death penalty makes sense. They are beyond redemption on this world.
Some of us have big hands and appreciate the extra real estate when typing on the phone. Bigs hands are great for many things and I love mine. However, I still miss my original large Xbox controller.
This is not automatically entrapment. The sting is just like a drugs for sale or prostitution on a street corner. Undercover cop wearing a wire and being videotaped by concealed police sits on stragetic street corner known to be hot with drugs or prostitution. The undercover cop is dressed to bait the individual seeking the drugs/services they believe the undercover is there to provide. When the individual atempts to solicit for purchase the drugs/services they are arrested for that crime.
Well.. sorta. Except I don't have to re-learn how to plug devices into the connectors when I move from USB to Thunderbolt. No real learning curve there.
I for one believe that it should stay that way into the foreseeable future. Even if modern criminal behavior prediction methods/tools experience a quantum leap forward, they will still be too inadequate to apply to general public predictive prevention of criminal acts. Large amounts of money, study, and effort have been put into understanding and "preventing recidivism in convicted sex offenders" (search that string for many studies/links). While it is known that the probability is extremely high for re-offending, predicting who, what, when, where, why, and how is nearly impossible.
If prediction in that well-studied, narrowly focused field is still producing poor accuracy, attempting to focus on such a wide group as "Everyone" is a no-go.
This article indicates that Roque the Younger called "Victim 1" to 'say that the page had been taken down by “high government officials and that everyone would pay for getting involved against Mayor Roque.” '
This is not really the type of police conduct that bothers me. Police and any other group of people tend to have a "we take care of our own" attitude. Also, do not under estimate the cops who showed up to be the "hero" for the Chief. "Good Morning, Sir. Remember me? I'm the one who found your son's lost phone that day. Um...about those layoffs (my raise, promotion, etc..)"
It does not even bother me that they couldn't locate the phone in a medium-large urban school with so many places to hide a turned off phone.
Anyway I suspect the Chief's son just wanted the new model and made the whole thing up.
Skype is marvelous for my 3yr old to talk to not just her grandparents, but to mom and dad as well. She enjoys the face to face interaction more than the phone calls. Skype is not a substitute for parenting and I don't believe you are hoping that it will be. Personally, ay always on camera in my house is a no-go.
Once a suspect is under that degree of intense surveillance it is difficult to emerge from it unscathed.
1. There was some compelling reason (right or wrong) to place the suspect under surveillance. 2. Hundreds of Thousands of dollars have been spent and none of the people involved in task want to come up empty. 3. By combining data from 1 and 2 this becomes a targetted and educated search for convictable case evidence. 4. 1, 2, and 3 together means that they are not pulling off the surveillance or making the arrest (especially in this case where the suspect is not aware of the surveillence and not a serious flight risk) without a preponderence of evidence to get that conviction. Warrants are issued. Agents/devices are in place. Evidence is piling up. The question is asked. "How much do we really need to convict this suspect?" This decision/answer comes from the U.S. Attorney/prosecution. 5. Yes. It is possible to that the surveillance turns up nothing, but this usually only occurs when the suspect is truly innocent, changes their behavior, or covers their acts well enough that surveillance yeilds no convictable evidence.
Getting a conviction in this case carries a large amount of ego/political/social baggage for the prosecution. They want a "heads must roll" payback or a "we will find you" deterrent for all of the lulz seekers out there.
Innocent until proven guilty, yes. However, I believe that a conviction is pretty much a forgone conclusion in this case. It would take a better lawyer than I, to successfully defend this case. I would imagine that Hammond's lawyer is already focused on the "plea deal".
Of course, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a major F.U. to the employee ranks and most of the management who had been working there until today.
That would be really pathetic if they did that. I would rather see them bankrupt. Sorry, to those who have purchased games from the service.
Britian still says that they are going to arrest him as soon as he steps out of the Ecuadorean Embassy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html
It pleases me to see so many Nerds also interested in Firearms.
All of the quality engineering, quality assurance, and quality control measurements should be designed to emulate the real world application of the software to the highest possible degree. Then a company must hire a compentent Quality Team in order to implement and perform the real world test cases. When it is not possible to recreate the actual real world environment due to cost or time, that risk is documented. Then management decides if it is an acceptable risk or if the money and time should be spent on creating that real world environment.
Sadly, they don't teach Quality Engineering as a focused career skill in school. It is always a secondary concern of development. Based on my own 17 years of Quality Engineering career experience as an individual contributor and as a department manager, about 2/3 of the developers I have worked with, are horrible at quality design, etc. That other 1/3 you find are the best developers in the company.
I wasn't directly replying to your single post. More to all the replies in this thread as a whole. I clicked the wrong "reply to this".
But to your point...
I believe that the answers are fairly simple IMHO. I don't have any statistics specific to my claims, just general knowledge.
-Supply and demand requires that there are just more users than dealers.
-Most users get arrested on drug-related charges due to police contact other than targetted narcotics enforcement. Domestic calls, traffic stops, public intoxication, etc. Users get stopped and searched for whatever reason and drugs turn up so they get arrested.
-Dealers tend to be more paranoid less likely to get caught "dirty"
In a side note, according to Law "intent to sell"=dealer and this is based on quantity of controlled substance. So, 1 dealer = many users based on weight. That is the stat I would like to see how much weight is seized from dealers vs users.
Ok. Let's play cops and robbers....or DEA and Silk Road Patrons.
I would contend that the package tracking works two ways. Not just to the destination. Package origin is also documented.
Even if the seller is savvy enough to drop-off packages at various locations, the activity will still create a narrowed package origin. If the seller spends the time to drive to the N closest package drop-off locations. Guess what? You have narrowed down the search quite a bit vs. the previously unknown origin.
All the DEA needs to accomplish this is to place multiple orders over time from a single seller. Backtrack the package with the quite helpful and cooperative shipping company. Create the shipping origin profile. One location=easy. Many locations=less easy. Next the DEA breaks out the tried and true drug-war fighting techniques. Stakeouts? Not yet. Grab available and future drop-off location surveillance video? Of course.
I am guessing that the *Federally* mandated *National* agency might want to put together an investigation effort over some years that would perhaps nab the biggest bust and make the best headlines. Promotions & Raises all around!
To this end they stage their drug-sniffing dogs/machines at the regional sorting center for the shipping companies. At some point the seller is going to contaminate the package with the controlled substance. Finding, but letting the drugs continue to ship. Thus, creating a larger more comprehensive list of where the drugs are going. Plus, we get a load of new addresses to monitor as drug buyers. Good luck with your plausible denialbility defense when you received 30 shipments over 2 years. It's sure easy to eliminate the legitimate shipments of drugs from the illicit since the DEA already has a list of approved mail-order pharmacies.
Now they go to work on the mules and seller directly by staking out the drop-off locations with the most activity in the region. They then match video/photographic footage of the drop-off location customers with the date/time stamps that the flagged addresses were sent packages. Presto! Mules and/or Sellers are identified and profiled. It's just a game of Big Fish / Little Fish after that. The DEA flips the middleman and keeps operations up and running leading to the biggest fish in that particular pond.
How much effort was spent on navigating torrents, cracking encryption, and tracking your dozen one time use account bit-coin transfers? Absolutely NONE. Good investigation skills and vast resources still work. The virtual world cannot be isolated from the physical world just yet. At least in this case. Sure, we are all waiting for when we can 3D print pills of any chemical composition at home for the low low price of resin. Lightsabers, Jetpacks, and Null Gravity drives
Maybe /.ers place too much faith in technology. Maybe the DEA and other enforcement agencies are not as backwards and technically inferior as most on /. believe them to be. Of course, I'm sure that within months some Fast & Furious type of botched operation will come to the publics awareness to confirm the stupidity of someone in one of these agencies. That does not exclude those same agencies from having intelligent and diligent people employed.
Just for fun watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Cover
You decide.
to have a valid email that was not work related. Two reasons. 1. To sign up for downloads and other stuff on the internet. 2. To look for another job. I have had many work related emails since 1995, but the same my personal Hotmail account. I even have a short and easy username since I signed up so early in the HoTMaiL beta. I upgraded to a Plus account for a year or two, but then didn't seen the need after the free service caught up to my requirements. I have since setup another junk hotmail account for the original purpose of spam honeypot/junkmail collector.
Over the years I have been pleased with the updates Microsoft has implemented to Hotmail to varying degrees. I haven't seen any webmail offerings that compelling enough to leave my hotmail.com account. The current product serves my needs well enough FWIW, I plan to keep on using the account simply because it's so convenient and all my friends know the address. I don't care about the outlook.com domain name. Same way I didn't care about the msn.com domain name.
Who knows maybe someday it will be as cool as my Dad's arpa.net account.
An armed citizenry is (would be) a deterrent and a repercussion to people performing these mass shootings and acts of violence. Look at the old man who prevented a robbery of that internet cafe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU
People types like James Holmes or Jared Loughner who commit these types of crimes are why the death penalty makes sense. They are beyond redemption on this world.
Some of us have big hands and appreciate the extra real estate when typing on the phone. Bigs hands are great for many things and I love mine. However, I still miss my original large Xbox controller.
This is not automatically entrapment. The sting is just like a drugs for sale or prostitution on a street corner. Undercover cop wearing a wire and being videotaped by concealed police sits on stragetic street corner known to be hot with drugs or prostitution. The undercover cop is dressed to bait the individual seeking the drugs/services they believe the undercover is there to provide. When the individual atempts to solicit for purchase the drugs/services they are arrested for that crime.
It is only entrapment if the person is induced to commit a crime "he or she is not previously disposed to commit".
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment
An important and often argued point.
outbid me again!
Well.. sorta. Except I don't have to re-learn how to plug devices into the connectors when I move from USB to Thunderbolt. No real learning curve there.
I for one believe that it should stay that way into the foreseeable future. Even if modern criminal behavior prediction methods/tools experience a quantum leap forward, they will still be too inadequate to apply to general public predictive prevention of criminal acts. Large amounts of money, study, and effort have been put into understanding and "preventing recidivism in convicted sex offenders" (search that string for many studies/links). While it is known that the probability is extremely high for re-offending, predicting who, what, when, where, why, and how is nearly impossible.
If prediction in that well-studied, narrowly focused field is still producing poor accuracy, attempting to focus on such a wide group as "Everyone" is a no-go.
your tinfoil is powerless here.
This article indicates that Roque the Younger called "Victim 1" to 'say that the page had been taken down by “high government officials and that everyone would pay for getting involved against Mayor Roque.” '
Now that is poor hacking skills!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html
This is not really the type of police conduct that bothers me. Police and any other group of people tend to have a "we take care of our own" attitude. Also, do not under estimate the cops who showed up to be the "hero" for the Chief. "Good Morning, Sir. Remember me? I'm the one who found your son's lost phone that day. Um...about those layoffs (my raise, promotion, etc..)"
It does not even bother me that they couldn't locate the phone in a medium-large urban school with so many places to hide a turned off phone.
Anyway I suspect the Chief's son just wanted the new model and made the whole thing up.
You Chuck Norris
are currently under development. They will fire less-lethal rounds at any dogs, cats, or children who dare to trespass onto my lawn.
http://left4dead.wikia.com/wiki/Gnome_Chompski
Take the good suggestions and put them to use.
Skype is marvelous for my 3yr old to talk to not just her grandparents, but to mom and dad as well. She enjoys the face to face interaction more than the phone calls.
Skype is not a substitute for parenting and I don't believe you are hoping that it will be. Personally, ay always on camera in my house is a no-go.
Once a suspect is under that degree of intense surveillance it is difficult to emerge from it unscathed.
1. There was some compelling reason (right or wrong) to place the suspect under surveillance.
2. Hundreds of Thousands of dollars have been spent and none of the people involved in task want to come up empty.
3. By combining data from 1 and 2 this becomes a targetted and educated search for convictable case evidence.
4. 1, 2, and 3 together means that they are not pulling off the surveillance or making the arrest (especially in this case where the suspect is not aware of the surveillence and not a serious flight risk) without a preponderence of evidence to get that conviction. Warrants are issued. Agents/devices are in place. Evidence is piling up. The question is asked. "How much do we really need to convict this suspect?" This decision/answer comes from the U.S. Attorney/prosecution.
5. Yes. It is possible to that the surveillance turns up nothing, but this usually only occurs when the suspect is truly innocent, changes their behavior, or covers their acts well enough that surveillance yeilds no convictable evidence.
Getting a conviction in this case carries a large amount of ego/political/social baggage for the prosecution. They want a "heads must roll" payback or a "we will find you" deterrent for all of the lulz seekers out there.
Innocent until proven guilty, yes. However, I believe that a conviction is pretty much a forgone conclusion in this case. It would take a better lawyer than I, to successfully defend this case. I would imagine that Hammond's lawyer is already focused on the "plea deal".
Of course, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Forkin' a' !
Still sad and irrelevant.
yes.. mommie dearest.