It makes perfect sense. Destroying evidence means that courts will interpret the evidence destroyed in the manner least favourable to the party doing the destroying.
Of course they need to be convinced that you did destroy evidence. Mere lack of evidence is not the same thing as destroying it. In this case they had clear evidence that the defendant had deliberately wiped a lot of files.
Unfortunately the new definition means we can't tell if something is a planet unless we can also see the orbital path, in finer detail. This may exclude Pluto/Charon, but why does it exclude 2003 UB313 and all other trans-neptunian objects?
Although I can see some wisdom in defining that planets must orbit our sun. Extrasolar observations will need to call discovered orbiting bodies something different, like planetoids, if they don't emit light like a star.
Can they get Cravath, Swaine and Moore to provide some input into the brief also?
They've provided several wonderful briefs in the SCO vs IBM case. If anybody can present a watertight legal argument, CS&M can. I'm just a bit worried that the brief as it stands contains too much emotive language and spends too much time appealing to the judge's sense of "the greater good".
IANAL, but IMHO judges don't care about "the greater good" unless it's a claim before them; I expect this judge will ignore all the emotive arguments and get right down to the question of whether it's legal to award attorneys' fees to the defendant, including whether the appropriate standard for awarding has been met.
I also expect the judge to try very hard to make the narrowest possible ruling. Judges don't like setting precedents; the bigger the precedent, the less the judge likes it. This brief strikes right to the heart of the Adversary legal system, namely that poor defendants have little access to the courts and can be easily abused by rich plaintiffs. The judge will want to stay way clear of upsetting that status quo.
My local gym's membership is only cost-effective if I go there at least 2 days a week. It's worthwhile paying the casual rate for at least a couple of months, no matter how often you visit, to be sure you can keep up that kind of attendance level. If you don't average at least 2 days a week for 2 months, no point buying the membership.
Don't use RAID5. It's slow to write, if you lose a disk then read performance is significantly degraded until you get another, rebuilding is slow, and if you get an unreadable sector during rebuilding you'll probably lose your entire array.
The article fails to consider the Australian Aborigines, who crossed into Australia via a land bridge from Asia around 40,000 - 50,000 years ago.
It's an interesting mathematical trick, but their result is so obviously empirically false, so I doubt their research even after excluding the Aborigines and other populations known to have been isolated from the rest of the world for many thousands of years.
The real news in this article is that they're not continually analyzing student performance. Instead of one examination every year or every 2 years, this is the first one for 5 years.
I've even explained how interrupt handlers work in regards to a USB joystick to a Lawyer...
I can just imagine you telling it in terms of Plaintiff and Defendant and an "Emergency Request for Permission to file an overlength memorandum in support of SCO's new Renewed Motion to compel discovery" to which the Judge must respond immediately.
I was just using RMS to distinguish it from PMPO, which is often used by unscrupulous vendors to make an impression on people who know nothing about audio.
500W PMPO doesn't get very loud at all. My sound system however can deliver audio in volumes which make it seriously hard to get any work done. That's why I usually keep it turned down to 1.5:-)
Apart from using the port numbers to identify ssh and https, traffic analysis will tend to show if encrypted traffic coming into or out of
a node is really ssh or https.
ssh traffic will tend to consist of a lot of small packets in one direction, at around typing speed, and either slightly larger packets in the other direction or much bigger packets (e.g. if the node is reading email over an ssh connection). ssh traffic will tend to be connections to a fixed set of hosts.
https traffic will tend to consist of a medium-sized packet outbound (less than 1k is probably typical) followed by a short wait and then a huge quantity of traffic coming in, and then the connection closes. https traffic will tend to show connections to lots of different IP addresses, and sometimes several concurrent connections to the same IP address.
Traffic analysis may not even be required. An oppressive government may not care about the details of whether a citizen is using ssh or Freenet; the mere existence of encrypted traffic may be enough of a give-away to cause a nighttime visit from the secret police.
In order to evade detection a privacy-loving citizen may need to go to the extent of using steganography within apparently normal looking web browsing.
The latest rage in on-disk encryption is "plausible deniability". In other words, a user who has encrypted data may be forced to give up
the key to access some of that encrypted data, but there may be more
hidden within it, and there's no way for an attacker to tell.
it makes it extremely difficult for them to even know that you are running a Freenet node at all.
Any entity which can tap your ISP's next-hop router can tell if you're
running Freenet due to the large quantity of encrypted traffic flowing in and out.
If we're talking about, say, a citizen of an oppressive regime attempting to communicate secretly over the internet, it is a fair
assumption that the said regime can tap all the citizen's traffic through their ISP (who will co-operate, or they will lose their ISP licence).
I can't help but laugh at some of the things the author wrote:
DESPITE THE FACT that movies on Sonys proprietary UMD format for the PSP are costing more than their DVD counterparts, the format is becoming extremely popular with both the consumer and Hollywood, with the high-prices being a good thing as far as studio execs are concerned.
Apparently "extremely popular" is weasel-words for "we will hype the format now and abandon in 6 months".
The high unit costs of the format mean that it does not directly compete with DVDs, meaning that the consumer will pay through the nose and the situation is win-win for the studios.
Wow, customers must really appreciate paying through the nose for a UMD, and this can only be good for the studios! (note: this is an example of
Irony).
The Inquirer article even quotes a Newsweek article,
PlayStation Portable - New Format for Hollywood, which is less glowing but was clearly the only source of information for the Inquirer author.
Even Newsweek can see the rorting going on with UMD but they seem to not have a problem with it, as they tell of the studios "milking their catalogs" as if that's a good thing.
What you're seeing is something quite common here, in that banks are so clueless about the technology that they use the same techniques which phishers use:
Different domain names (i.e. not the bank's domain name)
Unauthenticated emails (they never heard of PGP)
Web trickery involving redirection
A classic case is the "Verified By Visa" program. I went to purchase something online using my Visa card. The online shop redirected me to another URL, some domain I had never heard of, for this Verified By Visa thing (which I had also never heard of). That 2nd website asked me to enter my online banking username and password. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Some website which is not under my bank's domain name is asking for the login details which will provide access to all my bank accounts. That's pretty disgusting.
Fundamentally we need to get rid of unidirectional authentication. People have been trained for years to authenticate themselves to banks, phone companies, insurance companies, police, the government and so on, with little or no requirement for those organisations to authenticate themselves to us.
Dude, no phishing site can verify a password, and it's more work if
they have to produce an acceptable "logged in" page. Indeed it's
impossible if the logged-in page shows a customer's bank accounts
and balances. Anybody will realise instantly that they've been scammed.
No, I think phishing sites will reject all login attempts, and simply record all u/p pairs for the scammer to try later. That keeps the end-user guessing. They may try a few times, get frustrated and go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they need to be convinced that you did destroy evidence. Mere lack of evidence is not the same thing as destroying it. In this case they had clear evidence that the defendant had deliberately wiped a lot of files.
Although I can see some wisdom in defining that planets must orbit our sun. Extrasolar observations will need to call discovered orbiting bodies something different, like planetoids, if they don't emit light like a star.
Can they get Cravath, Swaine and Moore to provide some input into the brief also? They've provided several wonderful briefs in the SCO vs IBM case. If anybody can present a watertight legal argument, CS&M can. I'm just a bit worried that the brief as it stands contains too much emotive language and spends too much time appealing to the judge's sense of "the greater good".
IANAL, but IMHO judges don't care about "the greater good" unless it's a claim before them; I expect this judge will ignore all the emotive arguments and get right down to the question of whether it's legal to award attorneys' fees to the defendant, including whether the appropriate standard for awarding has been met.
I also expect the judge to try very hard to make the narrowest possible ruling. Judges don't like setting precedents; the bigger the precedent, the less the judge likes it. This brief strikes right to the heart of the Adversary legal system, namely that poor defendants have little access to the courts and can be easily abused by rich plaintiffs. The judge will want to stay way clear of upsetting that status quo.
Since I have to assume that anything I put in the hold is going to be frozen, depressurized, and repeatedly jumped on by the baggage handlers,
None of that will happen.
Your valuables will simply be stolen by the TSA.
Well, to paraphrase Linus, the destruction of Microsoft will just be an accidental side-effect.
See www.baarf.com
It's an interesting mathematical trick, but their result is so obviously empirically false, so I doubt their research even after excluding the Aborigines and other populations known to have been isolated from the rest of the world for many thousands of years.
The real news in this article is that they're not continually analyzing student performance. Instead of one examination every year or every 2 years, this is the first one for 5 years.
This is why it's important to not buy DRM-crippled hardware NOW, even if there is presently a workaround available.
Inacceptable is a perfectly cromulent word!
For me, it would have to be Professor Julius Sumner Miller.
I can just imagine you telling it in terms of Plaintiff and Defendant and an "Emergency Request for Permission to file an overlength memorandum in support of SCO's new Renewed Motion to compel discovery" to which the Judge must respond immediately.
Not only that, but 250 copies of A Christmas Carol where if you get a word wrong, the whole novel may crash and burn.
Full disclosure: if I find a bug in, say, Windows, should I
If I find a bug in USC's website, should I
If I find a bug in my employer's systems, should I
Enquiring minds wish to know ...
Very nice work.
I was just using RMS to distinguish it from PMPO, which is often used by unscrupulous vendors to make an impression on people who know nothing about audio.
500W PMPO doesn't get very loud at all. My sound system however can deliver audio in volumes which make it seriously hard to get any work done. That's why I usually keep it turned down to 1.5 :-)
A 500 watt (RMS) Logitech speaker system does it for me.
ssh traffic will tend to consist of a lot of small packets in one direction, at around typing speed, and either slightly larger packets in the other direction or much bigger packets (e.g. if the node is reading email over an ssh connection). ssh traffic will tend to be connections to a fixed set of hosts.
https traffic will tend to consist of a medium-sized packet outbound (less than 1k is probably typical) followed by a short wait and then a huge quantity of traffic coming in, and then the connection closes. https traffic will tend to show connections to lots of different IP addresses, and sometimes several concurrent connections to the same IP address.
Traffic analysis may not even be required. An oppressive government may not care about the details of whether a citizen is using ssh or Freenet; the mere existence of encrypted traffic may be enough of a give-away to cause a nighttime visit from the secret police.
In order to evade detection a privacy-loving citizen may need to go to the extent of using steganography within apparently normal looking web browsing.
The latest rage in on-disk encryption is "plausible deniability". In other words, a user who has encrypted data may be forced to give up the key to access some of that encrypted data, but there may be more hidden within it, and there's no way for an attacker to tell.
Any entity which can tap your ISP's next-hop router can tell if you're running Freenet due to the large quantity of encrypted traffic flowing in and out.
If we're talking about, say, a citizen of an oppressive regime attempting to communicate secretly over the internet, it is a fair assumption that the said regime can tap all the citizen's traffic through their ISP (who will co-operate, or they will lose their ISP licence).
Here's the article: Sony's UMD format breaks through to the mainstream.
I can't help but laugh at some of the things the author wrote:
Apparently "extremely popular" is weasel-words for "we will hype the format now and abandon in 6 months".
Wow, customers must really appreciate paying through the nose for a UMD, and this can only be good for the studios! (note: this is an example of Irony).
The Inquirer article even quotes a Newsweek article, PlayStation Portable - New Format for Hollywood, which is less glowing but was clearly the only source of information for the Inquirer author.
Even Newsweek can see the rorting going on with UMD but they seem to not have a problem with it, as they tell of the studios "milking their catalogs" as if that's a good thing.
A classic case is the "Verified By Visa" program. I went to purchase something online using my Visa card. The online shop redirected me to another URL, some domain I had never heard of, for this Verified By Visa thing (which I had also never heard of). That 2nd website asked me to enter my online banking username and password. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Some website which is not under my bank's domain name is asking for the login details which will provide access to all my bank accounts. That's pretty disgusting.
Fundamentally we need to get rid of unidirectional authentication. People have been trained for years to authenticate themselves to banks, phone companies, insurance companies, police, the government and so on, with little or no requirement for those organisations to authenticate themselves to us.
No, I think phishing sites will reject all login attempts, and simply record all u/p pairs for the scammer to try later. That keeps the end-user guessing. They may try a few times, get frustrated and go away.
I wonder if they installed John the Ripper?