Right. I disagree with him for the most part politically. But his work so far in my eyes has been intelligent, refined and not of the sort I have a lot of distaste in. When he disagrees with something I support, I can generally look at his argument as a refutation of my own as apposed to some ad hominem attack. He has a point, I can think about it and argue against it or support it. I usually still feel I'm right, but it's not like a line from Anne Coulter or Alan Baldwin where I know I'm going to disagree before they even finish the sentence. He's a worthy opponent which is a rare thing in this modern, black and white, low brow political scene.
I used to handle DMCA requests. We got thousands per day. You get them via email and there's no way to verify that the sender is who they say they are, the sender is actually the owner of the content, that the content can even BE owned, or that the contents of what's being complained about has anything to do with the complaint. DMCA requests are a logistical nightmare. You have a user thats hosting a file... Music.mp3 and you get an email from joesmith@lawfirm.com or whatever... How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question? How do you know it's not just a recording of the guys kid singing the song in the bath? Maybe the person sending the complaint is just his ex-wife. There's very little you can do about any of it, so you have to make a wild ass guess. You're almost always wrong, but the one thing you can be sure of is that if someone like Qualcomm sends you a complaint, they can certainly follow through with a lawsuit, where-as the an open source project likely cannot. So which side would you err on?
This is a problem with the law, not with Github or even Qualcomm. Fix the damned law.
The headline also fails to mention that only manually configured networks are affected (or perhaps old versions of Android, I don't remember the details from the comments to the story about 6 months ago regarding the exact same "flaw" in iOS). This is why it is a BAD idea for security to turn off access point beacons - because if your access point is not sending out beacons to identify itself, then the clients need to send out connection requests blindly - wherever they are.
That's only if the name is revealing. I called my "The NSA" so people that connect to it are broadcasting that everywhere. I have one neighbor that for some insane reason named his after his address. 123 Johnson road
One of the big issues with flashing lights is that they have to avoid frequencies which set off epileptic seizures. The last thing you want is for the driver of that hunk of metal behind you to have a seizure behind the wheel, stomping on the gas and jerking to the right as they collapse in a frothing fit...
One sure way to prevent a drive from hitting you r bicycle is to send them into a seizure. So that sounds like it would work even better!
Ok, a few years ago I would have also said it was impossible. But now that I know the lengths they'll go to for information that's not even helpful to them... Give me a unlimited budget and complete legal immunity? Yea, I could do it. It would be pretty unconventional, and break tons of laws, but I bet I could get it to work.
I think my first wild guess would be, start buying up power transformer producers. I bet there's only a few in the world. Figure out how to make that hum unique in a way most people wouldn't notice. Treat it like a serial number. Since you sell every transformer, that would include the ones in video cameras. The hum would get encoded in the video. The hum would also interact with the local power in the home or whatever. They've already proved you can use home wiring as an antenna. So yea, far fetched but again, given an infinite budget? Totally doable.
5) Most crimes leave evidence that is not on the criminal's computer.
or 6) The encrypted cellphone is thrown into the evidence bag and never looked at again because the arresting officer couldn't get it open.
I'd think it would be pretty rare that the police knew there was something encrypted that could help their case and just couldn't get to it. In most cases the encryption not only protects the data, it also hides its existence all together.
There's this story about an off-duty bridge officer aboard a large US military ship who, groggy after having to get up rather early, called the bridge and requested that the vehicle, some quarter of a million tons of steel, personnel and equipment, be rotated 15 degrees, all so he didn't have to move an inch to get the sun out of his eyes while he drank his coffee.
Maybe whoever wrote that list merely wants to read the Linux Journal forums. Surely we're not pretending as if SELinux doesn't exist and that the NSA hasn't historically contributed to Linux. That would be a foolish thing to do. Of foolishness.
Keep in mind that management is often divorced from reality. I'm sure that applies to the NSA as well.
Don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't put on a postcard. If you MUST email sensitive information, encrypt it before sending -- the encryption is the envelope.
No... encryption doesn't work either. If the data is only sensitive in the short term then you can encrypt it. So, for example, a configure file that wont matter in a month when you change it. But if the data is actually sensitive, like your financial records, eventually that encryption will be worthless and if anyone saved that file, they'll be able to decrypt it.
Massive privacy breach....e-mailed a report...containing sensitive details...e-mailed...
The problem here isn't that it was sent to the wrong account. It's that it was e-mailed AT ALL.
Right, the breach occurred the second the guy hit "Send" There is no "Fixing" this. The fact that Goldman Sachs doesn't have any security controls to block the sending of spreadsheets outside their network is eyebrow raising to say the least.
They're cutting funding because ITER's costs have spiraled out of control, and reviews of the project have shown that its management structure is fraught with problems. A few years ago, if you wanted to invest in fusion, ITER was the only project to invest in. Now there are dozens of other, far cheaper, better managed projects. We'll have to wait and see if they actually invest in any, but not investing in ITER isn't the downfall of fusion research by any stretch.
Yea no, the idea that blocking the email relieved the privacy concern is a joke. They sent that "massive privacy leak" or whatever, over the open internet. In fact, it sounds like they are routinely doing this, and their only concern is that they sent it to the wrong address. The real story here is that Goldman Sachs is sending this kind of info via email!!! In my job, if I were to send even your name and address via email outside our corporate network I'd be fired on the spot. The email traversed dozens of potentially compromised pieces of hardware on its way to google. There's no way to tell which route it took on the way to google. Goldman may think they have a peering agreement with google, but if they had an interface down on a core router when that email was sent it very well may have hit the open internet to get there. Blocking the email did absolutely nothing, the security issue is still real and the victim should still be notified. The fact that Goldman Sachs thinks this fixed the problem just means Goldman Sachs security controls are a joke.
73% believe in God, 87% trust scientists at least "somewhat" so, at the very least, 60% of people believe on God AND trust science at the same time! That's assuming there is no overlap.
If you disparage someone for their religious beliefs, you are a bigot. Seriously, you really are. It's not some different thing, you can't cite the crusades as evidence of how evil modern Christians are, you can't point to wars in the middle east. None of that has anything to do with the little old lady down the street that goes to church. You're making an offensive, and more importantly, incorrect generalization about an entire group of people based on the actions of a very small minority that has nothing to do with them at all.
I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.
Claimed efficiency is only 2%, using PV panels. It would make more sense to just use the PV panels to replace coal fired plants for generating electricity.
The point is, those solar lights at the dollar store? Yea... Make millions of them, throw them out in the desert, viola, carbon sink. You need to do something more with it beyond the acid, but this is the sort of idea we need to reduce already emitted CO2 after we've stopped creating all the extra.
You're actually highlighting the root of the problem. Law enforcement shouldn't be good or evil. They should be an impartial enforcer of the governments laws. Once we started treating them like some benevolent father figure they started seeing themselves in that way as well.
Do you lie to your children to keep them safe? Sometimes you have to give them a spanking? Scheme with other parents on how to keep them safe? Pox parties anyone?
Law enforcements not good. It just is. The fact that most police departments have PR firms working on retainer, that the Feds have an honest to god propaganda news agency working INSIDE THE US, that the government now works in secret with the courts to rule on our behalf? That's terrifying. It's no longer a government of the people... it's a government to control the people.
Right, if you don't have remote users, then it's less of an issue. But the thing is, I run a lot of meetings where I need to explain some fairly complex technical things to non-tech end users. I need to be quick, agile and able to answer completely random questions I never though of off the cuff without thinking about it too much. I get into a routine and find it hard to switch my methods because my audience has changed. I used to be a big whiteboard guy. People would tease me because they'd enter a room after I'd left and there'd be a mural of my terrible handwriting/spelling in there.
Now I use paint for what I used to use the whiteboard. The Text object makes my handwriting better, and I'm not stuck with the 3 dried out markers that hadn't yet been ganked out of the room for my colors.
I don't know who I dislike more in this case. Is there any way we can get Kim Dotcom and the FBI to go all Point Break on each other and get locked into a Patrick Swayze/Keanu Reeves death spiral except without the single parachute?
150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Beat that. Also, the Greeks used mirrors to do stuff on battlefields. But I dont care enough to work out what they called it.
Wait a second. We have to think on this critically. It was my understanding that the ruling meant that if someone searched for YOU they wouldn't find things about you anymore. If the BBC had an article about raising Goats, and that article mentioned John Sheldon the internets foremost Goat expert... If you searched for John Sheldon, you'd not find anything. But if you searched for "raising goats" you would.
Is Google playing games here? Or is this really what is legally required? It seems rather strange that they'd remove an entire BBC article from ALL search results just because 1 guy was mentioned. What if they had a forum section like most news sites do and this guy was an avid poster. Could he then get the entire BBC removed from google? I pretty much comment on every Slashdot story (or damned near it) If I used my real name could I get Slashdot de-listed? If so, this is going to be hilarious.
And me... I'm still astonished by it. The world is very strange indeed. What's even more amazing is that we may very well figure it out before I die. I couldn't think of anything greater than finally seeing the grand unified theory come together.
IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or.... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.
But I'm not so weak in my faith that I need to recruit people to agree with me. I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first. I believe in God, I accept that my belief is likely weird and not accepted by most, and I don't care. It's not something I desire to debate since I know it's an argument that can ever be won in any meaningful sense. It also helps that in my belief system, even the atheists are right!
Slashdot Mirror
Right. I disagree with him for the most part politically. But his work so far in my eyes has been intelligent, refined and not of the sort I have a lot of distaste in. When he disagrees with something I support, I can generally look at his argument as a refutation of my own as apposed to some ad hominem attack. He has a point, I can think about it and argue against it or support it. I usually still feel I'm right, but it's not like a line from Anne Coulter or Alan Baldwin where I know I'm going to disagree before they even finish the sentence. He's a worthy opponent which is a rare thing in this modern, black and white, low brow political scene.
I used to handle DMCA requests. We got thousands per day. You get them via email and there's no way to verify that the sender is who they say they are, the sender is actually the owner of the content, that the content can even BE owned, or that the contents of what's being complained about has anything to do with the complaint. DMCA requests are a logistical nightmare. You have a user thats hosting a file... Music.mp3 and you get an email from joesmith@lawfirm.com or whatever... How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question? How do you know it's not just a recording of the guys kid singing the song in the bath? Maybe the person sending the complaint is just his ex-wife. There's very little you can do about any of it, so you have to make a wild ass guess. You're almost always wrong, but the one thing you can be sure of is that if someone like Qualcomm sends you a complaint, they can certainly follow through with a lawsuit, where-as the an open source project likely cannot. So which side would you err on?
This is a problem with the law, not with Github or even Qualcomm. Fix the damned law.
The headline also fails to mention that only manually configured networks are affected (or perhaps old versions of Android, I don't remember the details from the comments to the story about 6 months ago regarding the exact same "flaw" in iOS). This is why it is a BAD idea for security to turn off access point beacons - because if your access point is not sending out beacons to identify itself, then the clients need to send out connection requests blindly - wherever they are.
That's only if the name is revealing. I called my "The NSA" so people that connect to it are broadcasting that everywhere. I have one neighbor that for some insane reason named his after his address. 123 Johnson road
They used to be, then they got inflated as they burned up all the elements that made them in the first place.
One of the big issues with flashing lights is that they have to avoid frequencies which set off epileptic seizures. The last thing you want is for the driver of that hunk of metal behind you to have a seizure behind the wheel, stomping on the gas and jerking to the right as they collapse in a frothing fit...
One sure way to prevent a drive from hitting you r bicycle is to send them into a seizure. So that sounds like it would work even better!
Ok, a few years ago I would have also said it was impossible. But now that I know the lengths they'll go to for information that's not even helpful to them... Give me a unlimited budget and complete legal immunity? Yea, I could do it. It would be pretty unconventional, and break tons of laws, but I bet I could get it to work.
I think my first wild guess would be, start buying up power transformer producers. I bet there's only a few in the world. Figure out how to make that hum unique in a way most people wouldn't notice. Treat it like a serial number. Since you sell every transformer, that would include the ones in video cameras. The hum would get encoded in the video. The hum would also interact with the local power in the home or whatever. They've already proved you can use home wiring as an antenna. So yea, far fetched but again, given an infinite budget? Totally doable.
You forgot:
5) Most crimes leave evidence that is not on the criminal's computer.
or
6) The encrypted cellphone is thrown into the evidence bag and never looked at again because the arresting officer couldn't get it open.
I'd think it would be pretty rare that the police knew there was something encrypted that could help their case and just couldn't get to it. In most cases the encryption not only protects the data, it also hides its existence all together.
There's this story about an off-duty bridge officer aboard a large US military ship who, groggy after having to get up rather early, called the bridge and requested that the vehicle, some quarter of a million tons of steel, personnel and equipment, be rotated 15 degrees, all so he didn't have to move an inch to get the sun out of his eyes while he drank his coffee.
Maybe whoever wrote that list merely wants to read the Linux Journal forums. Surely we're not pretending as if SELinux doesn't exist and that the NSA hasn't historically contributed to Linux. That would be a foolish thing to do. Of foolishness.
Keep in mind that management is often divorced from reality. I'm sure that applies to the NSA as well.
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
The Austrian Government owns over a 30% stake in the primary ISP and used to own 100% so... no. :-)
Don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't put on a postcard. If you MUST email sensitive information, encrypt it before sending -- the encryption is the envelope.
No... encryption doesn't work either. If the data is only sensitive in the short term then you can encrypt it. So, for example, a configure file that wont matter in a month when you change it. But if the data is actually sensitive, like your financial records, eventually that encryption will be worthless and if anyone saved that file, they'll be able to decrypt it.
Massive privacy breach....e-mailed a report...containing sensitive details...e-mailed...
The problem here isn't that it was sent to the wrong account. It's that it was e-mailed AT ALL.
Right, the breach occurred the second the guy hit "Send"
There is no "Fixing" this. The fact that Goldman Sachs doesn't have any security controls to block the sending of spreadsheets outside their network is eyebrow raising to say the least.
Except everything we have now.
They're cutting funding because ITER's costs have spiraled out of control, and reviews of the project have shown that its management structure is fraught with problems. A few years ago, if you wanted to invest in fusion, ITER was the only project to invest in. Now there are dozens of other, far cheaper, better managed projects. We'll have to wait and see if they actually invest in any, but not investing in ITER isn't the downfall of fusion research by any stretch.
Already blocked
Yea no, the idea that blocking the email relieved the privacy concern is a joke. They sent that "massive privacy leak" or whatever, over the open internet. In fact, it sounds like they are routinely doing this, and their only concern is that they sent it to the wrong address. The real story here is that Goldman Sachs is sending this kind of info via email!!! In my job, if I were to send even your name and address via email outside our corporate network I'd be fired on the spot. The email traversed dozens of potentially compromised pieces of hardware on its way to google. There's no way to tell which route it took on the way to google. Goldman may think they have a peering agreement with google, but if they had an interface down on a core router when that email was sent it very well may have hit the open internet to get there. Blocking the email did absolutely nothing, the security issue is still real and the victim should still be notified. The fact that Goldman Sachs thinks this fixed the problem just means Goldman Sachs security controls are a joke.
What, wasn't their faith in god strong enough? It works wonders for children without vaccinations...
In some cases, even religious people will trust science ... (though not enough if other persons are affected)
Seriously, have we gotten to the point that we're actually bigoted against all religions?
73% of Americans believe in God: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/1...
41% trust scientists, with another 46% trusting them "Somewhat" http://www.asanet.org/images/j...
73% believe in God, 87% trust scientists at least "somewhat" so, at the very least, 60% of people believe on God AND trust science at the same time! That's assuming there is no overlap.
If you disparage someone for their religious beliefs, you are a bigot. Seriously, you really are. It's not some different thing, you can't cite the crusades as evidence of how evil modern Christians are, you can't point to wars in the middle east. None of that has anything to do with the little old lady down the street that goes to church. You're making an offensive, and more importantly, incorrect generalization about an entire group of people based on the actions of a very small minority that has nothing to do with them at all.
I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.
yeah, it's the same gene.
My wife's standing behind me with an icepick and wants me to say "No it's not"
There's no point at removing a small amount of CO2 if you continue to add 10 times the amount somewhere else.
The point is, we may very well reduce our CO2 emissions at some point... then what?
Maybe this tech works out and we force fossil fuel producers to make enough of these gadgets to offset what they're putting out?
Claimed efficiency is only 2%, using PV panels. It would make more sense to just use the PV panels to replace coal fired plants for generating electricity.
The point is, those solar lights at the dollar store? Yea... Make millions of them, throw them out in the desert, viola, carbon sink. You need to do something more with it beyond the acid, but this is the sort of idea we need to reduce already emitted CO2 after we've stopped creating all the extra.
So... anybody in Europe want to try this out and let us know?
The next few weeks will be super fun if this actually works.
You're actually highlighting the root of the problem. Law enforcement shouldn't be good or evil. They should be an impartial enforcer of the governments laws. Once we started treating them like some benevolent father figure they started seeing themselves in that way as well.
Do you lie to your children to keep them safe?
Sometimes you have to give them a spanking?
Scheme with other parents on how to keep them safe?
Pox parties anyone?
Law enforcements not good. It just is. The fact that most police departments have PR firms working on retainer, that the Feds have an honest to god propaganda news agency working INSIDE THE US, that the government now works in secret with the courts to rule on our behalf? That's terrifying. It's no longer a government of the people... it's a government to control the people.
Right, if you don't have remote users, then it's less of an issue. But the thing is, I run a lot of meetings where I need to explain some fairly complex technical things to non-tech end users. I need to be quick, agile and able to answer completely random questions I never though of off the cuff without thinking about it too much. I get into a routine and find it hard to switch my methods because my audience has changed. I used to be a big whiteboard guy. People would tease me because they'd enter a room after I'd left and there'd be a mural of my terrible handwriting/spelling in there.
Now I use paint for what I used to use the whiteboard. The Text object makes my handwriting better, and I'm not stuck with the 3 dried out markers that hadn't yet been ganked out of the room for my colors.
I don't know who I dislike more in this case. Is there any way we can get Kim Dotcom and the FBI to go all Point Break on each other and get locked into a Patrick Swayze/Keanu Reeves death spiral except without the single parachute?
150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Beat that.
Also, the Greeks used mirrors to do stuff on battlefields. But I dont care enough to work out what they called it.
Wait a second. We have to think on this critically.
It was my understanding that the ruling meant that if someone searched for YOU they wouldn't find things about you anymore.
If the BBC had an article about raising Goats, and that article mentioned John Sheldon the internets foremost Goat expert...
If you searched for John Sheldon, you'd not find anything. But if you searched for "raising goats" you would.
Is Google playing games here? Or is this really what is legally required? It seems rather strange that they'd remove an entire BBC article from ALL search results just because 1 guy was mentioned. What if they had a forum section like most news sites do and this guy was an avid poster. Could he then get the entire BBC removed from google? I pretty much comment on every Slashdot story (or damned near it) If I used my real name could I get Slashdot de-listed? If so, this is going to be hilarious.
It freaked Einstein out too ya know?
And me... I'm still astonished by it. The world is very strange indeed. What's even more amazing is that we may very well figure it out before I die. I couldn't think of anything greater than finally seeing the grand unified theory come together.
IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or .... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.
I totally agree. Personally, I believe in God, but I've a pretty weird faith, I'm an Omnist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
But I'm not so weak in my faith that I need to recruit people to agree with me. I think there's a special kind of personality that has trouble accepting its own beliefs without convincing others first. I believe in God, I accept that my belief is likely weird and not accepted by most, and I don't care. It's not something I desire to debate since I know it's an argument that can ever be won in any meaningful sense. It also helps that in my belief system, even the atheists are right!