How is my view utopian? I'll quote myself: "Won't happen, most people don't care and it's good enough."
gmack is the idealist here, I was pointing out that it doesn't matter how people get the idea that a crack means you need better DRM. All that matters is that they get the idea. "[W]hether it's true or whether they infer it doesn't matter." You'll notice that DRM was the last thing on the hypothetical list that people would question.
Specifically, "You're right, but it doesn't change anything," basically means that no boycott will ever work, even an ideal one. Read that again if you want - an ideal boycott will not have the desired effect. Studios will go out of business and/or merge and we'll have EA and all its faults as the new Standard Oil. And the DRM will be oppressive, designed into the games. No more single player, everything is online through our authentication servers.
"[H]e couldn't return a library book on time" is an awfully broad stroke based on "two books he borrowed, but never returned." How many other books did he borrow and return on time? If you can't answer that, we have two books out of an unknown number, which could be 2/2 (100%) or 2/2000 (suggesting he actually could return things on time).
Is logic really that hard?
Additionally, he was probably busy doing Presidential things since this was the first year of his Presidency. And the ledger says "president", not "President", so how do we know which president it was? Look at the original Constitution - they loved capitalizing everything, and they went out of their way to lower-case this one. A circumstantial case if ever there was.
Slashdot: "News for nerds" Fark: "It's not news, it's Fark.com"
So, how many History nerds are reading Slashdot instead of ThingsThatUsedToBeNews.com?
You're not preventing the problem, you're adding to the list of offenses you can charge people with while you investigate the actual crime.
I think if you're going to have caller ID you should be able to trust it. At the same time, it would be better to educate people that people can sneak into other people's houses or businesses and legitimately be calling from the phone, but not actually being the trusted person. Or picking up someone's cell phone that doesn't have password-protection. It's not foolproof.
If you want to be safe, you have to do things like ask if you can call the person back at a different time, and ask for a number. If it doesn't match what's on Caller ID then ask why it doesn't match. We should spend more time educating people and less time passing laws, but Congress is not an educational organization - it writes laws. "The politicians" are not doing anything about the problem, only one of three branches is, and all three need to be involved.
Meantime, Congress gave additional powers to law enforcement so they can hold someone longer for questioning. Is that good or bad? Depends. What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?
You kinda have a point, but you're flailing on a few points. Poor people are much more likely to be paid in cash or cash checks immediately, and have cash around. Rich people need to be kidnapped and driven to the ATM for money. Rich and upper middle class people are more likely to have surveillance systems on their houses, or at least alarms. It's easier to steal from poor people, and I bet if you went looking for statistics to back yourself up you'd be wrong. Poor people who can't afford this will likely become targets of this, but when everyone around you has one you get herd immunity. Crimes will focus on not just poor people, but poor people cut off from the rest of society (temporarily even). You can already get yourself a voice/audio recorder that looks like sunglasses, so with a briefcase or backpack or purse to hold the additional equipment these might not be immediately visible. Not knowing who has one and who doesn't is a very good deterrant.
The flash mob is unlikely - I don't know my neighbors, and would not risk my life for them unless I was right there in the middle of it. I'd be a witness, but I'm not going to intervene..
Crimes are already mostly limited to crimes of passion. Statistically speaking, that is. You see an opportunity and take it - I'd argue this will make people think twice. Opportunistic crimes will go down, passion crimes will stay the same, and people will spend more time plotting revenge. Manipulate things when the recorders (and your head, but not your eyes) are looking at some legitimately attention-grabbing thing, and it goes unnoticed. The types of plotting you're talking about are rare enough, but those same types of people will go out of their way to out-wit a streaming video so everything appears innocuous. "Yes I visited his office the day he died, but here's my video of the visit..." leaving out the preparatory night before of course where you stashed items places.
We could both be wrong, but I do see some flaws in everyone's thinking on this, including mine. The one that interests me is blackmail. Kobe Bryant wouldn't need to prove everything was consensual, it's all on video. But would he still cheat? Probably yes. Look at Tiger woods - there are text messages and phone calls a blackmailer could use already, so now you're only able to blackmail people for things that actually happened. Fight Club's plot just got blackmailed because you have a video of a guy beating himself up, no fake job now. People are still going to do things because they will think everyone else is keeping the secret - it becomes a game of whether you trust someone. Just like it always has - remember the Duke Lacrosse accuser? Everyone has a good time, someone cries foul later, then the videos and pictures emerge. Every person at that party took a risk, but decided to keep partying due to an assumption of mutual trust. This will be no different - you trust and most of the time it works out, sometimes people call you out on it. David Letterman - that appeared to be an open secret, and finally someone decides to go public for money. Video surveillance would only have changed whether Dave and his conquests agreed to get naked in the first place.
Re:Rogue-like
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Change your thinking from "how many do you see per day" to "how many happen near you that you might have unknowningly recorded".
If you are in the area, and police are aware of your recording capabilities, they're going to ask you where you were. It might not be a court order, and you can probably refuse to answer, but if they are following every possible lead you're on the radar.
How would police know about you? Simple, you're going to look odd and they are going to ask questions at least once. Especially in a traffic scenario. They hate being recorded, so you're just as much a threat as as resource depending on where you live. Bottom line, you're likely to be noticed and once noticed likely to be used if at all possible.
Look at any typical city, find the local newspaper's website, and look at the number of crimes committed. "Police respond to..." means a potential crime - there's at least one a week. Where were you mister-record-everything guy, when the liquor store got knocked over, or the bank, or were you out walking when this home invasion occurred?
It doesn't matter how many you personally witness, it matters that they happen and you're potentially nearby. Your drive to work might go right by the liquor store, maybe even while it was robbed. You didn't see anything, but the camera caught the vehicles in the parking lot.
The "even worse" scenario is walking by a crime, not knowing about it, and being seen recording everything. Now the criminal has to get rid of a witness. I believe that's what Thanshin meant. You don't even have to see it, just be near enough that you seem like you might have recorded it. And once a criminal introduces himself to you by saying "Did you just record me killing that old lady for her purse?" you're in trouble. It only has to happen once in your lifetime to be a major bummer.
The original point was "every attack on you personally will be recorded," which has nothing to do with the number of crimes people witness per day. Every attack will be recorded, but it will be useless for the list of crimes posted above you, negating a lot of the benefit. Recorded but useless is not a prime selling point.
With the utmost respect, anyone who fails to recognize the very basic difference between having a unique online personality instead of typing "FuckingNickName" because they could not be arsed to come up with something unique is unlikely to have a clue or valued opinion about anything, at all, ever.
Or we could proceed the usual way where I don't know your name and I evaluate your ideas instead on their merit, and you don't know other peoples' typos because we're speaking to each other. Civilly. Like grown ups.
Part of the problem is geographical location. Call center work at $20/hour moves to Appalachia at under $10/hour, and you get to choose between moving and being unemployed. Most choose the layoff, but a few take the incentive to go train the n00bs. Often they return back where they were, because going from a $20/hr environment to $10/hr is a big culture shock, even if your wage stays the same.
Programming and other jobs can be virtual - I haven't worked with a team mate for 6 years now, barely meeting the ones I did work with. But I reorganized a few times and now I haven't met 16 out of the 20 people I work directly with now.
Where are the jobs, and are the skilled people there, and if not are they willing to move? Or even apply?
On the other side, the guy asking a question. I've downloaded code that is supposed to compile and run, but it doesn't because some undocumented dependency wasn't in the package, and wasn't in the build doc. (note the general use of 'you', not you in partuclar) If your component has a very simple test driver or unit test code, it should be simple to get running. If you're getting a lot of questions that aren't answerable by "google these two words, then read the following sentence" then maybe your design is a little unorthodox.
Make clean and make all before releasing, and try building from your own packages in a clean, newly made directory. If that works, then "build it, use a source-level debugger and step into the program if you can't otherwise find main()" is a reasonable response, followed by "I didn't write gdb so I can't take you through it but here's one of my favorite references."
There's a balance between short, reasonable, and personal tutor, and it's easy to go heavy to one side or the other. Of course if you don't have one of your favorite references because it's all in your head, it better be someone else's code.
And the biggest problem is that if you are a hotshot developer, the only real experience you are often allowed to have playing server admin is in a virtual machine for local development. Everything else is handled by the infrastructure team, and depending how Fortune 500 you are, the coders package all releases and never touch the box at all.
Taking courses and playing with virtual machines is fine, but there are things that you will never be prepared for until emergency strikes. Learning when copy/paste works through remote sessions, and when you have to move a file, can save tens of minutes on a machine, and I see the *infrastructure* people save, move, copy remotely, File/Open, find the folder again... the system is down, just open it locally, copy, ALT-TAB, paste, F5. You have to solve the problem quickly and correctly.
Making a person admin their own app is the best way for them to learn - either they write good code, or they get calls at night or on holidays. Of course you need some backup with that plan, unless it's not an important server.
You just don't get that much experience, especially if your employer has well-defined roles.
You're right, but it doesn't change anything. Pirating means someone cracked it and gave it away, so let's get a better lock on the door. whether it's true or whether they infer it doesn't matter.
If everyone stopped buying, playing, and pirating DRM-infested titles for 1 month the industry would shit itself. We sold 0 titles? Oh then they must be downloading. No downloads? No activity on the servers at all? W-T-F? Let's get a new title out there with full-on advertising. No one bought it? W-T-F? OK, maybe let's look at this DRM thing.
Won't happen, most people don't care and it's good enough. But at least be honest - yes, it tells them that, whether they infer it logically or not.
Does your company have a number of training hours required? I'm guessing no. My employer requires 40 hours of training. Some of this is mandatory all-hands training like ethics courses and administrative task training. The remainder of the time is spent on role-specific training. If you are doing.NET development, you take courses on.NET. The technical lead on a team is supposed to have input on your skills and which courses you should be taking.
Most of the time, I end up having to put down book reading using "AdHoc" training time because I don't feel like taking the available courses. AdHoc means something other than the Saba-provided training courses available, which automatically updates the training record. I could just as easily put down exam prep. The big thing is that I have to find time to set aside, and that's one of those things our team has decided is important. Schedule training time and don't move it unless there is a financial incentive like losing/winning business.
I'm salary, so I sometimes have down time when we're waiting for client requirements, and I can do the online course thing, pausing and returning if needed. There are hourly people, and they often get waived from the 40-hour training requirement. Who wants to pay for 40 hours of training just so the entry-level people feel over-qualified and underpaid? No one, that's who. The benefit to them, however, is that they can spend their own time using the supplied courses. It's not a big incentive, and predictably people who do that usually find a better job somewhere else using their new-found skills and knowledge, so it's not mentioned much other than in official company policy.
In addition, there used to be a payback for passing a certification exam, but I think that went away. Take it twice, pass the second time, and they pay for just the time you passed. So if you really felt ready, you were confident it would be paid for. Confidence isn't always correct of course.
Bottom line is, whether it's negotiating company payback or time to set aside or obtaining materials which aren't supplied by the company or its suppliers, a meeting with your boss is the first step. If you can make a good argument, you win. Next is company policy - if your boss says no but you find company policy to overrule, go back and try again. If that doesn't work, go up the chain and ask in public meetings or start talking on company discussion boards or over the water cooler. We asked that in a team meeting and the boss asked if any of us had brought it up with him - we were silent for a bit and someone said "We were told not to expense office supplies any more, we didn't think there would be money for training." So we didn't ask. Man, we felt stupid. We just didn't directly ask. Your situation seems different.
If all roads lead to "no", do you really want to work there? That's not rhetorical, you might be better off there and not making waves. But asking questions about company mandates will get you a better job - by making the current one better or by making you look for a better one.
Market segmentation has always been around - you sell things at Bed Bath and Beyond (just as an example) for outrageous prices, but also mail 20% off coupons in several different mailings. Different people get different advertising packages, and it's already based on your purchases since mail-order places tend to share mailing lists as an extra revenue stream.
So it's the new old thing again. Different prices to different people is exactly how the market works today - you buy something for full price, or wait until it's on sale, or wait until you have a coupon, or wait until it's on clearance. You choose the price by choosing when/how to buy.
I'd like to point out that there's no difference between this model and ordering online - online they have your name and IP address and the link you clicked to get to their store along with google keywords if you clicked from google. All this does is expand the same idea into physical stores like fast food that otherwise would be anonymous. If you pay cash, which since more and more places are starting to accept debit/credit cards means you're already giving them more information. And of course the card processing fees increase the cost of providing the service, increasing your food costs indirectly.
Next time someone replies to a troll like this just to get your comment higher on the page, I'm going to mod you off-topic, because you're off the topic that you're replying to. Unfortunately I won't be able to leave a comment explaining why. You want to top-post on this story, you're going to have to come up with some sort of kathleen fent-related content.
Your comment is not more worthy than anyone else's comment until it has been judged so by the community. You're just not special, sorry if no one has told you that before.
Go ahead, mod me off-topic, I'll come back stronger than ever.
I like linux but I run Windows everywhere, and I'm only vaguely aware of this tool. I un-check it every time I do a Windows update, usually with a "Ha, like I'd let you run on my machine" type snark. I wouldn't think it's reasonable to expect a Windows user to be aware of whether it detects rootkits, especially the typical user since auto-updates happen without even registering (or auto-updates are turned off, either way most windows users never even see it). It started out just removing worms and trojans, and I never even expected it to detect rootkits. If I never did Windows Updates manually to filter out genuine advantage and other garbage I'd not even think about it.
I would trust Rootkit Revealer from Sysinternals before I'd trust something Microsoft sends (yes I know they are the same company). I'm not saying there's a problem with it, in fact Windows Defender seems to be very highly recommended and lightweight compared to free antivirus solutions, so I'm sure MSRT does a fine job on a specific set of known maliciousfiles.
I have a religious disinterest in this case, since I'm aware of it and refuse to learn about it. The linux poster who knows nothing about it is simply ignorant (not an insult, simply lacking facts). I would classify "minor academic interest" as picking up new information if it comes along and happens to be meaningful to stick, not actively seeking information. The fine line is whether someone actively avoids learning, or simply allows opportunities to slip by. I actively avoid it, and I both know and admit it, but looks like this poster simply lets it slide.
In fact, most of the Anti-virus vendors are complaining about the unfair monopoly MS has, destroying their business prospects by including Antivirus out of the box. But most of the reporting is on Windows Defender, completely ignoring (or mentioning without much description) the Malicious Software Removal Tool. It's more likely that someone following news for nerds knows about Defender than the MSRT.
You could have simply said RTFA or included this quote:
the company has urged users to download its Malicious Software Removal Tool to clean up their machines and run the patch as soon as possible.
That would have been a much better, and as I illustrated above more accurate, reply than "religious disinterest", unless you meant of the article rather than Microsoft-related stuff.
So now we have the question of whether a linux user would reasonably be aware of Windows Defender, which constitute the other 20 or so redundant replies to this question. I admit that when I come across a linux antivirus article, I've learned that it does not apply to Windows and so I ignore it. I'd expect the same from a linux user on Windows A/V articles. Surely the A/V industry complaints about Microsoft's monopoly abuse have managed to get through? No, the brain at some point cannot stand any more "Microsoft accused of abusing its monopoly" stories and just skips on.
The only reason I'm aware of Windows Defender as a Microsoft user and programmer (.NET, T-SQL, Win32, VBS, broken CSS, and some others and semi-active in the ReactOS community so I'm fully entrenched) is because a recent "Ask Slashdot" asked about free antivirus, and almost across the board Defender was the recommendation. I got tired of AVG's continued bloat and silly issues like only using the C drive for updates (which can cause out of diskspace errors, which is made worse because it doesn't clean up after itself), so I read the article - otherwise I would have ignored it.
Put yourself in someone else's shoes before making a reply, it makes the discussion flow better. I've violated that a few times myself and I cringe when I scroll past those comments in my post history, but I try to do better.
MSRT history of which files are detected in each release so that someone can correct me if one of the originals was a rootkit (Hackdef was added in April, maybe there was one before that): http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890830
Why is it that slashdot poster types group everyone together, as if they all have a hive mind? Each company has to learn this lesson, and often if a person is replaced the new guy has to learn it as well. Each company learns as it happens, and still they might resist the change in certain situations.
I frequently find small quirks in my codebase while looking at other unrelated items like general performance monitoring, and don't have time to investigate completely, but if someone complains I'll fix it. The change control process and testing is a lot of overhead to fix something that most people don't run into. So I can see the perspective of the "don't fix unless it's necessary" crowd, and it requires a real change in thinking and process updates to ensure everyone is going to be onboard. If someone doesn't think the change is worthwhile they can reject the change or delay it, either through making additional informational or approval requests, or flat out rejecting the change request. So it sits.
On the other hand, I write code for corporate internal sites and their clients, with heavy security and tracking, so if someone manages to turn a quirk into a vulnerability they will be caught and fired - and my data isn't sensitive enough that anyone would even try to break in. Most websites do not have the ability to threaten "you will lose your job" if the users hack it, so my motivation is just what can I package into a release without documenting all of the little bug fixes.
My point is, it will take a lot to switch me to the "fix everything just in case" mentality, and it would take other people, individually, some revelation or event like this before they start being proactive in their fixes.
If it were a standard field breathalyzer, it probably makes up random numbers when it gets outside of the normal testing zone. In fact, I remember a state where the source code for the breathalyzer had to be released (to independent experts, not part of the court record). The expert's conclusion was that due to internal data conversion, the numbers were effectively "rounded" into meaningless and essentially random numbers. With a two-digit requirement for legal drunkenness (0.08 in some states), there was no way for the manufacturer to guarantee the results clearly showed which side of the law the person was on.
Then have someone's unexpectedly high reading, and I'd expect the numbers to be kinda representative but not accurate. Only if they do a blood test at the station would I believe a number that far outside of normal operating range. Not saying it didn't happen, just explaining why I'd want to confirm that before spreading the story any further.
And I forgot the most important part - half of your requirements aren't even required, since this queries remotely. It doesn't have to run on the client, doesn't have to be 32 and 64 bit, doesn't have to be deployable. It runs remotely and captures data through remote WMI queries. Most of the "Linux already has this" replies are client-side tools, not server-side like this one.
You took a very simple idea (detecting USB) which can easily be cross-compiled for 32 and 64 bit using Microsoft's toolchain, and made it into a gigantic pile of crap, then dared someone to show it to you.
Most of that stuff is already in place, if they wanted it. Most business already have the reporting and alert infrastructure, so you just hook in to that and it takes care of everything you listed except for the 32/64 bit and MSI/SMS installation.
So, now we have a simple tool which has to plug in to an existing reporting and alert system, which explains why they wrote their own. They probably don't want to contact a vendor and give them an API into this thing, nor do they want to expose the API of their reporting thing, so they just write a simple app and the integration points with their configuration management database. Probably faster to do it that way than use whatever was availble 5 years ago, and explains why they didn't use a COTS solution. Simple, yes?
If someone said they were doing an experiment and handed me wads of cash, I would have one of two conclusions. Either I'm going to hand that money back at some point, or I'm going to rob the guy and take it. It would not make sense for someone to do an experiment where you end up with piles of cash, although it has happened. But it has been so rare that you would consider it an anomaly.
Of course you could read the article where it was explained as a finger dexterity exercise, so no it is not possible.
Among other experiments, she and colleagues challenged college students to a supposed finger-dexterity task in which they counted out either 80 $100 bills or 80 slips of paper. Afterward, the cash-counters reported less pain than the paper-counters when their fingers were dipped briefly into 122-degree Fahrenheit water.
Next time you want me to read something for you, please make an appointment.
I'd get your eyes checked to make sure you can actually see the 3D, instead of just thinking you can. The whole point for me of 3D was that Avatar was too dense. Too much information to sort through. The 3D added depth information, so I was able to tell things apart.
You might have overlooked this part, but Avatar was not a plot-driven movie. It was pure special effects. Other movies could be made which actually have plot, but this wasn't one of them. The purpose of 3D was to differentiate all of the various foreign objects spatially so you could make sense of what's happening on the screen.
"Immerse" will never happen until we have the ability to block out the people around you so forget about that in relation to 3D at this time.
First, is it that important that you record television when you're in the real world? Must be nice to have first-world problems.
Second, my VCR is 17 years old or so, and is programmable. So if I did feel the need to record stuff, I could. Or buy a second VCR set to record the other channel at a different time. I don't know what ReplayTV is, but it sounds like if you have something like MythTV you should be able to get it to switch channels when you want it to (as opposed to telling it to figure out when to switch on its own). There are probably other workarounds as well, so I don't think Comcast's ignorance will affect everyone - just those unwilling to find a workaround. So you're paying them for convenience, which is the basis of the service industry. You can choose to pay them or not, getting your programming from over-the-air or your own workaround or some other option, and you can choose separately whether to use their tools or your own.
Just because you're a convicted criminal making money by selling snake-oil, doesn't mean everything you do is wrong. That said, he was basically trying to win a court case via popularity contest instead of through the legal process. There was no reason to ask supporters to do this. There was no expected benefit. If he wanted their testimony he should have introduced them as witnesses, which would open them up to be cross-examined.
Instead, he gave one-sided testimony directly to the judge, bypassing discovery rules, with no possibility for the prosecution to cross-examine. I'm surprised this isn't a mistrial.
And regardless of what happened in this case, he should serve his time in a furnace.
Slashdot Mirror
How is my view utopian? I'll quote myself: "Won't happen, most people don't care and it's good enough."
gmack is the idealist here, I was pointing out that it doesn't matter how people get the idea that a crack means you need better DRM. All that matters is that they get the idea. "[W]hether it's true or whether they infer it doesn't matter." You'll notice that DRM was the last thing on the hypothetical list that people would question.
Specifically, "You're right, but it doesn't change anything," basically means that no boycott will ever work, even an ideal one. Read that again if you want - an ideal boycott will not have the desired effect. Studios will go out of business and/or merge and we'll have EA and all its faults as the new Standard Oil. And the DRM will be oppressive, designed into the games. No more single player, everything is online through our authentication servers.
That's *dystopian* thinking right there.
"[H]e couldn't return a library book on time" is an awfully broad stroke based on "two books he borrowed, but never returned." How many other books did he borrow and return on time? If you can't answer that, we have two books out of an unknown number, which could be 2/2 (100%) or 2/2000 (suggesting he actually could return things on time).
Is logic really that hard?
Additionally, he was probably busy doing Presidential things since this was the first year of his Presidency. And the ledger says "president", not "President", so how do we know which president it was? Look at the original Constitution - they loved capitalizing everything, and they went out of their way to lower-case this one. A circumstantial case if ever there was.
Slashdot: "News for nerds"
Fark: "It's not news, it's Fark.com"
So, how many History nerds are reading Slashdot instead of ThingsThatUsedToBeNews.com?
You're not preventing the problem, you're adding to the list of offenses you can charge people with while you investigate the actual crime.
I think if you're going to have caller ID you should be able to trust it. At the same time, it would be better to educate people that people can sneak into other people's houses or businesses and legitimately be calling from the phone, but not actually being the trusted person. Or picking up someone's cell phone that doesn't have password-protection. It's not foolproof.
If you want to be safe, you have to do things like ask if you can call the person back at a different time, and ask for a number. If it doesn't match what's on Caller ID then ask why it doesn't match. We should spend more time educating people and less time passing laws, but Congress is not an educational organization - it writes laws. "The politicians" are not doing anything about the problem, only one of three branches is, and all three need to be involved.
Meantime, Congress gave additional powers to law enforcement so they can hold someone longer for questioning. Is that good or bad? Depends. What legitimate need would you have for spoofing? Completely shutting off the ID is still an option, but what use would you have for pretending to be another phone number?
You kinda have a point, but you're flailing on a few points. Poor people are much more likely to be paid in cash or cash checks immediately, and have cash around. Rich people need to be kidnapped and driven to the ATM for money. Rich and upper middle class people are more likely to have surveillance systems on their houses, or at least alarms. It's easier to steal from poor people, and I bet if you went looking for statistics to back yourself up you'd be wrong. Poor people who can't afford this will likely become targets of this, but when everyone around you has one you get herd immunity. Crimes will focus on not just poor people, but poor people cut off from the rest of society (temporarily even). You can already get yourself a voice/audio recorder that looks like sunglasses, so with a briefcase or backpack or purse to hold the additional equipment these might not be immediately visible. Not knowing who has one and who doesn't is a very good deterrant.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mini+spy+sunglasses
The flash mob is unlikely - I don't know my neighbors, and would not risk my life for them unless I was right there in the middle of it. I'd be a witness, but I'm not going to intervene..
Crimes are already mostly limited to crimes of passion. Statistically speaking, that is. You see an opportunity and take it - I'd argue this will make people think twice. Opportunistic crimes will go down, passion crimes will stay the same, and people will spend more time plotting revenge. Manipulate things when the recorders (and your head, but not your eyes) are looking at some legitimately attention-grabbing thing, and it goes unnoticed. The types of plotting you're talking about are rare enough, but those same types of people will go out of their way to out-wit a streaming video so everything appears innocuous. "Yes I visited his office the day he died, but here's my video of the visit..." leaving out the preparatory night before of course where you stashed items places.
We could both be wrong, but I do see some flaws in everyone's thinking on this, including mine. The one that interests me is blackmail. Kobe Bryant wouldn't need to prove everything was consensual, it's all on video. But would he still cheat? Probably yes. Look at Tiger woods - there are text messages and phone calls a blackmailer could use already, so now you're only able to blackmail people for things that actually happened. Fight Club's plot just got blackmailed because you have a video of a guy beating himself up, no fake job now. People are still going to do things because they will think everyone else is keeping the secret - it becomes a game of whether you trust someone. Just like it always has - remember the Duke Lacrosse accuser? Everyone has a good time, someone cries foul later, then the videos and pictures emerge. Every person at that party took a risk, but decided to keep partying due to an assumption of mutual trust. This will be no different - you trust and most of the time it works out, sometimes people call you out on it. David Letterman - that appeared to be an open secret, and finally someone decides to go public for money. Video surveillance would only have changed whether Dave and his conquests agreed to get naked in the first place.
Change your thinking from "how many do you see per day" to "how many happen near you that you might have unknowningly recorded".
If you are in the area, and police are aware of your recording capabilities, they're going to ask you where you were. It might not be a court order, and you can probably refuse to answer, but if they are following every possible lead you're on the radar.
How would police know about you? Simple, you're going to look odd and they are going to ask questions at least once. Especially in a traffic scenario. They hate being recorded, so you're just as much a threat as as resource depending on where you live. Bottom line, you're likely to be noticed and once noticed likely to be used if at all possible.
Look at any typical city, find the local newspaper's website, and look at the number of crimes committed. "Police respond to..." means a potential crime - there's at least one a week. Where were you mister-record-everything guy, when the liquor store got knocked over, or the bank, or were you out walking when this home invasion occurred?
It doesn't matter how many you personally witness, it matters that they happen and you're potentially nearby. Your drive to work might go right by the liquor store, maybe even while it was robbed. You didn't see anything, but the camera caught the vehicles in the parking lot.
The "even worse" scenario is walking by a crime, not knowing about it, and being seen recording everything. Now the criminal has to get rid of a witness. I believe that's what Thanshin meant. You don't even have to see it, just be near enough that you seem like you might have recorded it. And once a criminal introduces himself to you by saying "Did you just record me killing that old lady for her purse?" you're in trouble. It only has to happen once in your lifetime to be a major bummer.
The original point was "every attack on you personally will be recorded," which has nothing to do with the number of crimes people witness per day. Every attack will be recorded, but it will be useless for the list of crimes posted above you, negating a lot of the benefit. Recorded but useless is not a prime selling point.
With the utmost respect, anyone who fails to recognize the very basic difference between having a unique online personality instead of typing "FuckingNickName" because they could not be arsed to come up with something unique is unlikely to have a clue or valued opinion about anything, at all, ever.
Or we could proceed the usual way where I don't know your name and I evaluate your ideas instead on their merit, and you don't know other peoples' typos because we're speaking to each other. Civilly. Like grown ups.
Part of the problem is geographical location. Call center work at $20/hour moves to Appalachia at under $10/hour, and you get to choose between moving and being unemployed. Most choose the layoff, but a few take the incentive to go train the n00bs. Often they return back where they were, because going from a $20/hr environment to $10/hr is a big culture shock, even if your wage stays the same.
Programming and other jobs can be virtual - I haven't worked with a team mate for 6 years now, barely meeting the ones I did work with. But I reorganized a few times and now I haven't met 16 out of the 20 people I work directly with now.
Where are the jobs, and are the skilled people there, and if not are they willing to move? Or even apply?
On the other side, the guy asking a question. I've downloaded code that is supposed to compile and run, but it doesn't because some undocumented dependency wasn't in the package, and wasn't in the build doc. (note the general use of 'you', not you in partuclar) If your component has a very simple test driver or unit test code, it should be simple to get running. If you're getting a lot of questions that aren't answerable by "google these two words, then read the following sentence" then maybe your design is a little unorthodox.
Make clean and make all before releasing, and try building from your own packages in a clean, newly made directory. If that works, then "build it, use a source-level debugger and step into the program if you can't otherwise find main()" is a reasonable response, followed by "I didn't write gdb so I can't take you through it but here's one of my favorite references."
There's a balance between short, reasonable, and personal tutor, and it's easy to go heavy to one side or the other. Of course if you don't have one of your favorite references because it's all in your head, it better be someone else's code.
And the biggest problem is that if you are a hotshot developer, the only real experience you are often allowed to have playing server admin is in a virtual machine for local development. Everything else is handled by the infrastructure team, and depending how Fortune 500 you are, the coders package all releases and never touch the box at all.
Taking courses and playing with virtual machines is fine, but there are things that you will never be prepared for until emergency strikes. Learning when copy/paste works through remote sessions, and when you have to move a file, can save tens of minutes on a machine, and I see the *infrastructure* people save, move, copy remotely, File/Open, find the folder again... the system is down, just open it locally, copy, ALT-TAB, paste, F5. You have to solve the problem quickly and correctly.
Making a person admin their own app is the best way for them to learn - either they write good code, or they get calls at night or on holidays. Of course you need some backup with that plan, unless it's not an important server.
You just don't get that much experience, especially if your employer has well-defined roles.
You're right, but it doesn't change anything. Pirating means someone cracked it and gave it away, so let's get a better lock on the door. whether it's true or whether they infer it doesn't matter.
If everyone stopped buying, playing, and pirating DRM-infested titles for 1 month the industry would shit itself. We sold 0 titles? Oh then they must be downloading. No downloads? No activity on the servers at all? W-T-F? Let's get a new title out there with full-on advertising. No one bought it? W-T-F? OK, maybe let's look at this DRM thing.
Won't happen, most people don't care and it's good enough. But at least be honest - yes, it tells them that, whether they infer it logically or not.
Does your company have a number of training hours required? I'm guessing no. My employer requires 40 hours of training. Some of this is mandatory all-hands training like ethics courses and administrative task training. The remainder of the time is spent on role-specific training. If you are doing .NET development, you take courses on .NET. The technical lead on a team is supposed to have input on your skills and which courses you should be taking.
Most of the time, I end up having to put down book reading using "AdHoc" training time because I don't feel like taking the available courses. AdHoc means something other than the Saba-provided training courses available, which automatically updates the training record. I could just as easily put down exam prep. The big thing is that I have to find time to set aside, and that's one of those things our team has decided is important. Schedule training time and don't move it unless there is a financial incentive like losing/winning business.
I'm salary, so I sometimes have down time when we're waiting for client requirements, and I can do the online course thing, pausing and returning if needed. There are hourly people, and they often get waived from the 40-hour training requirement. Who wants to pay for 40 hours of training just so the entry-level people feel over-qualified and underpaid? No one, that's who. The benefit to them, however, is that they can spend their own time using the supplied courses. It's not a big incentive, and predictably people who do that usually find a better job somewhere else using their new-found skills and knowledge, so it's not mentioned much other than in official company policy.
In addition, there used to be a payback for passing a certification exam, but I think that went away. Take it twice, pass the second time, and they pay for just the time you passed. So if you really felt ready, you were confident it would be paid for. Confidence isn't always correct of course.
Bottom line is, whether it's negotiating company payback or time to set aside or obtaining materials which aren't supplied by the company or its suppliers, a meeting with your boss is the first step. If you can make a good argument, you win. Next is company policy - if your boss says no but you find company policy to overrule, go back and try again. If that doesn't work, go up the chain and ask in public meetings or start talking on company discussion boards or over the water cooler. We asked that in a team meeting and the boss asked if any of us had brought it up with him - we were silent for a bit and someone said "We were told not to expense office supplies any more, we didn't think there would be money for training." So we didn't ask. Man, we felt stupid. We just didn't directly ask. Your situation seems different.
If all roads lead to "no", do you really want to work there? That's not rhetorical, you might be better off there and not making waves. But asking questions about company mandates will get you a better job - by making the current one better or by making you look for a better one.
Market segmentation has always been around - you sell things at Bed Bath and Beyond (just as an example) for outrageous prices, but also mail 20% off coupons in several different mailings. Different people get different advertising packages, and it's already based on your purchases since mail-order places tend to share mailing lists as an extra revenue stream.
So it's the new old thing again. Different prices to different people is exactly how the market works today - you buy something for full price, or wait until it's on sale, or wait until you have a coupon, or wait until it's on clearance. You choose the price by choosing when/how to buy.
I'd like to point out that there's no difference between this model and ordering online - online they have your name and IP address and the link you clicked to get to their store along with google keywords if you clicked from google. All this does is expand the same idea into physical stores like fast food that otherwise would be anonymous. If you pay cash, which since more and more places are starting to accept debit/credit cards means you're already giving them more information. And of course the card processing fees increase the cost of providing the service, increasing your food costs indirectly.
So yeah nothing new here.
We've just been waiting for someone to confess. Answer the doorbell!
Next time someone replies to a troll like this just to get your comment higher on the page, I'm going to mod you off-topic, because you're off the topic that you're replying to. Unfortunately I won't be able to leave a comment explaining why. You want to top-post on this story, you're going to have to come up with some sort of kathleen fent-related content.
Your comment is not more worthy than anyone else's comment until it has been judged so by the community. You're just not special, sorry if no one has told you that before.
Go ahead, mod me off-topic, I'll come back stronger than ever.
I like linux but I run Windows everywhere, and I'm only vaguely aware of this tool. I un-check it every time I do a Windows update, usually with a "Ha, like I'd let you run on my machine" type snark. I wouldn't think it's reasonable to expect a Windows user to be aware of whether it detects rootkits, especially the typical user since auto-updates happen without even registering (or auto-updates are turned off, either way most windows users never even see it). It started out just removing worms and trojans, and I never even expected it to detect rootkits. If I never did Windows Updates manually to filter out genuine advantage and other garbage I'd not even think about it.
I would trust Rootkit Revealer from Sysinternals before I'd trust something Microsoft sends (yes I know they are the same company). I'm not saying there's a problem with it, in fact Windows Defender seems to be very highly recommended and lightweight compared to free antivirus solutions, so I'm sure MSRT does a fine job on a specific set of known maliciousfiles.
I have a religious disinterest in this case, since I'm aware of it and refuse to learn about it. The linux poster who knows nothing about it is simply ignorant (not an insult, simply lacking facts). I would classify "minor academic interest" as picking up new information if it comes along and happens to be meaningful to stick, not actively seeking information. The fine line is whether someone actively avoids learning, or simply allows opportunities to slip by. I actively avoid it, and I both know and admit it, but looks like this poster simply lets it slide.
In fact, most of the Anti-virus vendors are complaining about the unfair monopoly MS has, destroying their business prospects by including Antivirus out of the box. But most of the reporting is on Windows Defender, completely ignoring (or mentioning without much description) the Malicious Software Removal Tool. It's more likely that someone following news for nerds knows about Defender than the MSRT.
You could have simply said RTFA or included this quote:
That would have been a much better, and as I illustrated above more accurate, reply than "religious disinterest", unless you meant of the article rather than Microsoft-related stuff.
So now we have the question of whether a linux user would reasonably be aware of Windows Defender, which constitute the other 20 or so redundant replies to this question. I admit that when I come across a linux antivirus article, I've learned that it does not apply to Windows and so I ignore it. I'd expect the same from a linux user on Windows A/V articles. Surely the A/V industry complaints about Microsoft's monopoly abuse have managed to get through? No, the brain at some point cannot stand any more "Microsoft accused of abusing its monopoly" stories and just skips on.
The only reason I'm aware of Windows Defender as a Microsoft user and programmer (.NET, T-SQL, Win32, VBS, broken CSS, and some others and semi-active in the ReactOS community so I'm fully entrenched) is because a recent "Ask Slashdot" asked about free antivirus, and almost across the board Defender was the recommendation. I got tired of AVG's continued bloat and silly issues like only using the C drive for updates (which can cause out of diskspace errors, which is made worse because it doesn't clean up after itself), so I read the article - otherwise I would have ignored it.
Put yourself in someone else's shoes before making a reply, it makes the discussion flow better. I've violated that a few times myself and I cringe when I scroll past those comments in my post history, but I try to do better.
MSRT history of which files are detected in each release so that someone can correct me if one of the originals was a rootkit (Hackdef was added in April, maybe there was one before that):
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890830
Why is it that slashdot poster types group everyone together, as if they all have a hive mind? Each company has to learn this lesson, and often if a person is replaced the new guy has to learn it as well. Each company learns as it happens, and still they might resist the change in certain situations.
I frequently find small quirks in my codebase while looking at other unrelated items like general performance monitoring, and don't have time to investigate completely, but if someone complains I'll fix it. The change control process and testing is a lot of overhead to fix something that most people don't run into. So I can see the perspective of the "don't fix unless it's necessary" crowd, and it requires a real change in thinking and process updates to ensure everyone is going to be onboard. If someone doesn't think the change is worthwhile they can reject the change or delay it, either through making additional informational or approval requests, or flat out rejecting the change request. So it sits.
On the other hand, I write code for corporate internal sites and their clients, with heavy security and tracking, so if someone manages to turn a quirk into a vulnerability they will be caught and fired - and my data isn't sensitive enough that anyone would even try to break in. Most websites do not have the ability to threaten "you will lose your job" if the users hack it, so my motivation is just what can I package into a release without documenting all of the little bug fixes.
My point is, it will take a lot to switch me to the "fix everything just in case" mentality, and it would take other people, individually, some revelation or event like this before they start being proactive in their fixes.
This post incorporates the linked post below by reference as well.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1620242&cid=31864318
If it were a standard field breathalyzer, it probably makes up random numbers when it gets outside of the normal testing zone. In fact, I remember a state where the source code for the breathalyzer had to be released (to independent experts, not part of the court record). The expert's conclusion was that due to internal data conversion, the numbers were effectively "rounded" into meaningless and essentially random numbers. With a two-digit requirement for legal drunkenness (0.08 in some states), there was no way for the manufacturer to guarantee the results clearly showed which side of the law the person was on.
Then have someone's unexpectedly high reading, and I'd expect the numbers to be kinda representative but not accurate. Only if they do a blood test at the station would I believe a number that far outside of normal operating range. Not saying it didn't happen, just explaining why I'd want to confirm that before spreading the story any further.
You like expensive?
And I forgot the most important part - half of your requirements aren't even required, since this queries remotely. It doesn't have to run on the client, doesn't have to be 32 and 64 bit, doesn't have to be deployable. It runs remotely and captures data through remote WMI queries. Most of the "Linux already has this" replies are client-side tools, not server-side like this one.
You took a very simple idea (detecting USB) which can easily be cross-compiled for 32 and 64 bit using Microsoft's toolchain, and made it into a gigantic pile of crap, then dared someone to show it to you.
Most of that stuff is already in place, if they wanted it. Most business already have the reporting and alert infrastructure, so you just hook in to that and it takes care of everything you listed except for the 32/64 bit and MSI/SMS installation.
So, now we have a simple tool which has to plug in to an existing reporting and alert system, which explains why they wrote their own. They probably don't want to contact a vendor and give them an API into this thing, nor do they want to expose the API of their reporting thing, so they just write a simple app and the integration points with their configuration management database. Probably faster to do it that way than use whatever was availble 5 years ago, and explains why they didn't use a COTS solution. Simple, yes?
If someone said they were doing an experiment and handed me wads of cash, I would have one of two conclusions. Either I'm going to hand that money back at some point, or I'm going to rob the guy and take it. It would not make sense for someone to do an experiment where you end up with piles of cash, although it has happened. But it has been so rare that you would consider it an anomaly.
Of course you could read the article where it was explained as a finger dexterity exercise, so no it is not possible.
Next time you want me to read something for you, please make an appointment.
I'd get your eyes checked to make sure you can actually see the 3D, instead of just thinking you can. The whole point for me of 3D was that Avatar was too dense. Too much information to sort through. The 3D added depth information, so I was able to tell things apart.
You might have overlooked this part, but Avatar was not a plot-driven movie. It was pure special effects. Other movies could be made which actually have plot, but this wasn't one of them. The purpose of 3D was to differentiate all of the various foreign objects spatially so you could make sense of what's happening on the screen.
"Immerse" will never happen until we have the ability to block out the people around you so forget about that in relation to 3D at this time.
First, is it that important that you record television when you're in the real world? Must be nice to have first-world problems.
Second, my VCR is 17 years old or so, and is programmable. So if I did feel the need to record stuff, I could. Or buy a second VCR set to record the other channel at a different time. I don't know what ReplayTV is, but it sounds like if you have something like MythTV you should be able to get it to switch channels when you want it to (as opposed to telling it to figure out when to switch on its own). There are probably other workarounds as well, so I don't think Comcast's ignorance will affect everyone - just those unwilling to find a workaround. So you're paying them for convenience, which is the basis of the service industry. You can choose to pay them or not, getting your programming from over-the-air or your own workaround or some other option, and you can choose separately whether to use their tools or your own.
Unless you're talking about an actual curb, driving-related stories should not use 'curb' as a verb.
In addition, the headline says 'combat' while the article includes 'curb' 3 times and no 'combat'.
Please, speak clearly and skip the puns, hyperbole, and 'vivid metaphors'. News first.
Signed,
-The Internet
Please allow me to elaborate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Just because you're a convicted criminal making money by selling snake-oil, doesn't mean everything you do is wrong. That said, he was basically trying to win a court case via popularity contest instead of through the legal process. There was no reason to ask supporters to do this. There was no expected benefit. If he wanted their testimony he should have introduced them as witnesses, which would open them up to be cross-examined.
Instead, he gave one-sided testimony directly to the judge, bypassing discovery rules, with no possibility for the prosecution to cross-examine. I'm surprised this isn't a mistrial.
And regardless of what happened in this case, he should serve his time in a furnace.