To me, the real story is that the people behind this botnet are getting extradited and, (knock wood), will do jail time in the US.
While I would be happy for the creators to rot in prison, this is also scary. Why should they be extradited to the US?/. commenters get outraged at mention of the megaupload folks being extradited simply because they disagree with the laws that were allegedly violating. It was the same excuse that it related to machines in the US. What makes the US so friggin' special for them to be extradited? Is what they did not illegal in Estonia? If not, then should they be prosecuted for actions they took while in a country where it wasn't illegal? If so, then why aren't they being prosecuted in Estonia, where they actually were when they did illegal stuff? If we're in one country doing business with another country over the Internet, or doing something on servers in another country, which country's laws should apply? Which country should get to prosecute?
Meanwhile...I still get a dozen 419 scam emails for every craigslist ad I post. While everyone reading this probably thinks that only an idiot would fall for them, there are clearly people who do. Just because somebody isn't computer literate doesn't make them an idiot, there are real people losing real money, and yet the scammers aren't prosecuted because they're "over there" even though they're scraping craigslist's US based servers, sending email to servers and people in the US, receiving money fraudulently through Western Union, a US based company, from the US.
What kind of precedent do we want? Can we at least be consistent?
I'm trying to think of one thing someone could do to me armed with knowldege of my current location.
1. Determine that you're far away from home while they burglarize your house.
2. Determine that you were in the vicinity of a burglarized house and throw you behind bars without a warrant for 48 hours while they try to find evidence.
3. Determine you were someplace "unsavory" and use it as blackmail, or to deny you future employment, etc.
TFA mentions wider applications, such as first responders, antarctica, 3rd world countries, and other remote locations. It seems like that would be a much larger user base than space. Why is the focus so much on space applications? It seems like something that would be so useful on Earth, that could also happen to be used in space, not the other way around.
The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.
Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.
Ok, night vision goggles and binoculars as mentioned in the summary are big bulky things, so it would stand to reason that you wouldn't want to wear those all the time. But why jump straight to contacts? Why not make some the size of regular glasses, which you'd think would be a helluva lot easier? I wonder whose campaign(s) iOptiks brib^H^H^H donated to.
Though a few people have pointed out that it's version specific, if you look at the actual numbers Chrome is still pretty close to IE, which is very cool. Of course, it's based on pageviews and not the number of users, and I bet most people who bother using Chrome probably use the web more than your average IE user.
Is Firefox going to go bye-bye? I expect that there will always be an open source browser that has a reasonable market share. Will Firefox continue to be on top, or will we be seeing a different dominant open source browser in a couple of years?
When we stored tapes at an offsite backup, they were picked up in a locked metal box by uniformed security guards who delivered them to their protected site. These days it has shifted to VPN. Never heard of just having tapes sitting in an employee's car. What was the offsite backup? A shoebox in his closet?
This isn't the first time something like this has happened with patient data. I remember several years ago in Portland, Providence got some backup tapes with patient records stolen from an employee's car and I'm pretty sure a massive lawsuit and/or HIPAA fine followed. It's all fine and dandy that you had uniformed security guards transport the tapes, but let's face it, for many smaller organizations that's not practical or even necessary. Just don't leave them unattended in your car! Don't stop at a restaurant or bar and don't leave them in your car overnight, or even in the parking lot of your office. Not leaving them in your car would have prevented this, and even if you're with the tapes and you're carjacked it probably wouldn't be considered negligence for the sake of HIPAA fines and lawsuits, so long as your backups are encrypted. It's negligent, stupid and lazy not to encrypt HIPAA protected data in your backups.
Yeah, the picture is of an F-4 model, but it's probably a stock photo. The picture has now been replaced by a video, and the commentator states something like "these are the types of planes the attacker blah blah blah." That's the "news" these days, don't have a picture of the real thing? Who cares, show something else and pretend. It's the same attitude as everything else on the "news" - don't have the facts? Who cares, make them up. Don't like the facts? Who cares, make something up.
Personally, I think the F-4 looks a lot cooler than the F-86, but the F-86 looks more like a bomb with wings.
A real, full-size airliner barely put a dent in the Pentagon. A remote controlled plane the size of a Cessna full of C4 would break a few windows.
This guy was a physics major and can't calculate how much C4 it would take to punch a hole in a solid concrete building?
What makes you think you actually have to kill a lot of people to have a major impact? Look at how much money we spent and how many more people we killed when the bad guys killed a few thousand of us, when it's an order of magnitude less than the number of deaths by car accidents every single year in the US. How many lives could we have saved (and not tanked our economy, but I won't go too far there) if we had put all the money we've spent in the war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan instead into making cars safer? It's not about how many lives are lost or saved, it's about reacting and playing off people's fears. Even if nobody was killed, smashing a bomb into the pentagon would have a bigger impact politically than a bus full of people getting into an accident and killing everyone and you know it.
Guess I gotta give you credit for at least reading the first half of the article. In the 2nd half:
he began supplying the FBI undercover agents with cell phones rigged to act as electric switches for improved explosive devices, intended to be used to kill U.S. soldiers overseas.
I assume since he's being charged with attempting to provide stuff for bad guys, the attempt was that he tried to do it, but it was only an attempt because he actually sold it to FBI agents, not Al Qaeda.
The purpose of a patent is to prevent others from profiting off of your invention, or method of doing something for a finite period of time.
In the US, that is absolutely NOT the purpose of a patent. Is that not the case elsewhere? The US constitution specifically states that it's to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The method of promoting science and useful arts is to allow the creator to profit, thus encouraging them to do their thing by allowing them to be compensated for it. The point is absolutely not to maximize profits for the creator. Do you really think extending copyright term (retroactively!) is going to affect whether or not somebody decides to write a novel or a song? Do you really think structuring patent laws such that only lawyers and companies with enough money to sink into lots of lawyers benefit is going to promote the progress of science and the useful arts?
Yeah yeah,/. is us-centric blah blah blah. But seriously, is the actual (not necessarily practical) purpose of patent and copyright not the same in the EU?
AT&T:We have altered the deal. Pray we do not alter it again.
Do you think it's coincidence that this comes when they're buying up the competition? I have been staying with AT&T specifically because of my unlimited data plan. I'll be switching to a different provider when this takes effect, thank you very much. Unfortunately most people don't know the difference, they just know that the guy at the store said they can watch Youtube and use Facebook with plan X. I wouldn't mind non-unlimited plans if they charged a reasonable amount for overage. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist in the US.
To put things in perspective...this thing costs less than a single B-2 bomber, and about the same as a few 747s or a large cruise ship. Which is more beneficial?
These numbers are based on applications for court permission - I'm assuming that means a warrant or something equivalent to a warrant. Doesn't this mean there's some sort of due process going on? Seems to me it's warrantless wiretaps that are bad, since there is no due process and therefore violates an amendment or two of the constitution. The fact that law enforcement is actually following due process seems like it should be a *good* thing. Or am I missing something?
Isn't the "cloud" supposed to mean you basically don't care where it is? It's just that cloud in the old network diagrams with "Internet" typed into it and we really don't care what's in there? I guess saying it's accessible on the Internet might imply you care on what server in what datacenter. Kinda like saying "they're out to get me" vs. "the black helicopters are out to get me." If they want to alleviate privacy and security concerns using the term "the cloud" just seems stupid. Why not say something like, "on a secure server accessible by your healthcare provider through the Internet."
Of course in real life the "cloud" usually means a virtual machine running on servers in a large data center. I thought the idea when marketing people started using that term was that it was supposed to be automagically scalable, and completely portable between hosting providers, but of course we all know that's not the case. Now it's just starting to get old and annoying, like the "BIG SALE FOR A SHORT TIME ONLY!" signs outside of every mattress store.
First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority).
And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.
I mean, Firefox isn't an OS, so if they're gonna do something completely different, why stop there? How about a Firefox branded computer running on a Firefox CPU? Of course, that has to be powered by electricity, so how about Firefox electrical generators running on Firefox coal or Firefox oil?
12 year pay-off ignoring operating expenses and maintenance.
Sounds like a good investment.
I think that's the point. That's why the government has to guarantee the loan. It's not a good investment in itself, but it is a good investment in the future of the technology, and overall in the acceptance of advancing new sources of power. Consider this a $2B investment in R&D where a good chunk will be recuperated in the power that it actually does generate. Oh yeah, and 12 years does happen (unless the doomsday folks are right), and I don't plan on being dead by then.
This is not the way we should select who our new doctors will be.
Then it's a good thing doctors aren't granted board certification immediately following a good score on the MCAT. The MCAT is simply an indicator that, along with a high GPA, means you have better chance of success in medical school than somebody else with a lower GPA and MCAT score. They still have to do well in med school. Fail at that, and your out. Succeed in med school and you still have to demonstrate competency as a resident. Sure, you can cheat your way through undergrad, cheat your way on the MCAT, and probably even cheat your way though med school, but fortunately, it's a lot harder to cheat your way through residency.
Sure, like any profession there are bad doctors out there, but at least doctors have a much more stringent screening process and training process than most other professions.
Another good reason for NAT is that you don't have to pay your ISP for multiple IP addresses. Do you think ISPs will off unlimited IP addresses for free when they start using IPv6? I don't. Without NAT, does this mean we'll have to pay a few extra dollars per month for each device in our house? Let''s see, in my household of 3 people, I've got 3 desktops, 2 laptops, a Wii, an Apple TV, 2 iPhones, and Blu-Ray player. That's 10. Let's say I get one for free, and my ISP charges an extra $5 per IP address, that's an extra $45 a month. I may have a few more devices in my house than a lot of people, but still, people would only put up with not having NAT if they don't have to pay extra for additional IP addresses. Or is it a bad assumption that ISPs will still want to charge for extra IPs?
From TFA:
"SolarReserve is hoping to begin construction toward the end of 2011." Doesn't say when they plan to actually have it functioning. From their own press release on SolarReserve's website, they still have to get environmental approval from BLM and Wester Area Power Administration and "anticipates concluding financing arrangements by mid-2011 in order to begin full on-site construction in the third quarter of 2011."
Aren't most mammals generally, well, furry? Perhaps being covered in fur reduces UV exposure to the skin so such an enzyme is no longer needed, therefore furry critters with more photolyase don't tend to reproduce more?
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the real story is that the people behind this botnet are getting extradited and, (knock wood), will do jail time in the US.
While I would be happy for the creators to rot in prison, this is also scary. Why should they be extradited to the US? /. commenters get outraged at mention of the megaupload folks being extradited simply because they disagree with the laws that were allegedly violating. It was the same excuse that it related to machines in the US. What makes the US so friggin' special for them to be extradited? Is what they did not illegal in Estonia? If not, then should they be prosecuted for actions they took while in a country where it wasn't illegal? If so, then why aren't they being prosecuted in Estonia, where they actually were when they did illegal stuff? If we're in one country doing business with another country over the Internet, or doing something on servers in another country, which country's laws should apply? Which country should get to prosecute?
Meanwhile...I still get a dozen 419 scam emails for every craigslist ad I post. While everyone reading this probably thinks that only an idiot would fall for them, there are clearly people who do. Just because somebody isn't computer literate doesn't make them an idiot, there are real people losing real money, and yet the scammers aren't prosecuted because they're "over there" even though they're scraping craigslist's US based servers, sending email to servers and people in the US, receiving money fraudulently through Western Union, a US based company, from the US.
What kind of precedent do we want? Can we at least be consistent?
I'm trying to think of one thing someone could do to me armed with knowldege of my current location.
1. Determine that you're far away from home while they burglarize your house.
2. Determine that you were in the vicinity of a burglarized house and throw you behind bars without a warrant for 48 hours while they try to find evidence.
3. Determine you were someplace "unsavory" and use it as blackmail, or to deny you future employment, etc.
TFA mentions wider applications, such as first responders, antarctica, 3rd world countries, and other remote locations. It seems like that would be a much larger user base than space. Why is the focus so much on space applications? It seems like something that would be so useful on Earth, that could also happen to be used in space, not the other way around.
The Executive branch has no Constitutional authority to enforce it as any kind of treaty without ratification by Congress. I know some are "debating" this, but the debate is nothing but BS. The Constitution spells it out pretty clearly.
Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.
Ok, night vision goggles and binoculars as mentioned in the summary are big bulky things, so it would stand to reason that you wouldn't want to wear those all the time. But why jump straight to contacts? Why not make some the size of regular glasses, which you'd think would be a helluva lot easier? I wonder whose campaign(s) iOptiks brib^H^H^H donated to.
Since we're talking averages, this would really only be meaningful if unemployed salaries ($0) were averaged in.
Though a few people have pointed out that it's version specific, if you look at the actual numbers Chrome is still pretty close to IE, which is very cool. Of course, it's based on pageviews and not the number of users, and I bet most people who bother using Chrome probably use the web more than your average IE user. Is Firefox going to go bye-bye? I expect that there will always be an open source browser that has a reasonable market share. Will Firefox continue to be on top, or will we be seeing a different dominant open source browser in a couple of years?
When we stored tapes at an offsite backup, they were picked up in a locked metal box by uniformed security guards who delivered them to their protected site. These days it has shifted to VPN. Never heard of just having tapes sitting in an employee's car. What was the offsite backup? A shoebox in his closet?
This isn't the first time something like this has happened with patient data. I remember several years ago in Portland, Providence got some backup tapes with patient records stolen from an employee's car and I'm pretty sure a massive lawsuit and/or HIPAA fine followed. It's all fine and dandy that you had uniformed security guards transport the tapes, but let's face it, for many smaller organizations that's not practical or even necessary. Just don't leave them unattended in your car! Don't stop at a restaurant or bar and don't leave them in your car overnight, or even in the parking lot of your office. Not leaving them in your car would have prevented this, and even if you're with the tapes and you're carjacked it probably wouldn't be considered negligence for the sake of HIPAA fines and lawsuits, so long as your backups are encrypted. It's negligent, stupid and lazy not to encrypt HIPAA protected data in your backups.
The picture sure looks like an F-4 Phantom jet...
anyone?
Yeah, the picture is of an F-4 model, but it's probably a stock photo. The picture has now been replaced by a video, and the commentator states something like "these are the types of planes the attacker blah blah blah." That's the "news" these days, don't have a picture of the real thing? Who cares, show something else and pretend. It's the same attitude as everything else on the "news" - don't have the facts? Who cares, make them up. Don't like the facts? Who cares, make something up.
Personally, I think the F-4 looks a lot cooler than the F-86, but the F-86 looks more like a bomb with wings.
A real, full-size airliner barely put a dent in the Pentagon. A remote controlled plane the size of a Cessna full of C4 would break a few windows.
This guy was a physics major and can't calculate how much C4 it would take to punch a hole in a solid concrete building?
What makes you think you actually have to kill a lot of people to have a major impact? Look at how much money we spent and how many more people we killed when the bad guys killed a few thousand of us, when it's an order of magnitude less than the number of deaths by car accidents every single year in the US. How many lives could we have saved (and not tanked our economy, but I won't go too far there) if we had put all the money we've spent in the war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan instead into making cars safer? It's not about how many lives are lost or saved, it's about reacting and playing off people's fears. Even if nobody was killed, smashing a bomb into the pentagon would have a bigger impact politically than a bus full of people getting into an accident and killing everyone and you know it.
Huh? How does the charge relate to the act?
Guess I gotta give you credit for at least reading the first half of the article. In the 2nd half:
he began supplying the FBI undercover agents with cell phones rigged to act as electric switches for improved explosive devices, intended to be used to kill U.S. soldiers overseas.
I assume since he's being charged with attempting to provide stuff for bad guys, the attempt was that he tried to do it, but it was only an attempt because he actually sold it to FBI agents, not Al Qaeda.
The purpose of a patent is to prevent others from profiting off of your invention, or method of doing something for a finite period of time.
In the US, that is absolutely NOT the purpose of a patent. Is that not the case elsewhere? The US constitution specifically states that it's to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The method of promoting science and useful arts is to allow the creator to profit, thus encouraging them to do their thing by allowing them to be compensated for it. The point is absolutely not to maximize profits for the creator. Do you really think extending copyright term (retroactively!) is going to affect whether or not somebody decides to write a novel or a song? Do you really think structuring patent laws such that only lawyers and companies with enough money to sink into lots of lawyers benefit is going to promote the progress of science and the useful arts?
/. is us-centric blah blah blah. But seriously, is the actual (not necessarily practical) purpose of patent and copyright not the same in the EU?
Yeah yeah,
AT&T: We have altered the deal. Pray we do not alter it again.
Do you think it's coincidence that this comes when they're buying up the competition? I have been staying with AT&T specifically because of my unlimited data plan. I'll be switching to a different provider when this takes effect, thank you very much. Unfortunately most people don't know the difference, they just know that the guy at the store said they can watch Youtube and use Facebook with plan X. I wouldn't mind non-unlimited plans if they charged a reasonable amount for overage. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist in the US.
To put things in perspective...this thing costs less than a single B-2 bomber, and about the same as a few 747s or a large cruise ship. Which is more beneficial?
These numbers are based on applications for court permission - I'm assuming that means a warrant or something equivalent to a warrant. Doesn't this mean there's some sort of due process going on? Seems to me it's warrantless wiretaps that are bad, since there is no due process and therefore violates an amendment or two of the constitution. The fact that law enforcement is actually following due process seems like it should be a *good* thing. Or am I missing something?
Isn't the "cloud" supposed to mean you basically don't care where it is? It's just that cloud in the old network diagrams with "Internet" typed into it and we really don't care what's in there? I guess saying it's accessible on the Internet might imply you care on what server in what datacenter. Kinda like saying "they're out to get me" vs. "the black helicopters are out to get me." If they want to alleviate privacy and security concerns using the term "the cloud" just seems stupid. Why not say something like, "on a secure server accessible by your healthcare provider through the Internet."
Of course in real life the "cloud" usually means a virtual machine running on servers in a large data center. I thought the idea when marketing people started using that term was that it was supposed to be automagically scalable, and completely portable between hosting providers, but of course we all know that's not the case. Now it's just starting to get old and annoying, like the "BIG SALE FOR A SHORT TIME ONLY!" signs outside of every mattress store.
First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority). And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.
I mean, Firefox isn't an OS, so if they're gonna do something completely different, why stop there? How about a Firefox branded computer running on a Firefox CPU? Of course, that has to be powered by electricity, so how about Firefox electrical generators running on Firefox coal or Firefox oil?
12 year pay-off ignoring operating expenses and maintenance.
Sounds like a good investment.
I think that's the point. That's why the government has to guarantee the loan. It's not a good investment in itself, but it is a good investment in the future of the technology, and overall in the acceptance of advancing new sources of power. Consider this a $2B investment in R&D where a good chunk will be recuperated in the power that it actually does generate. Oh yeah, and 12 years does happen (unless the doomsday folks are right), and I don't plan on being dead by then.
This is not the way we should select who our new doctors will be.
Then it's a good thing doctors aren't granted board certification immediately following a good score on the MCAT. The MCAT is simply an indicator that, along with a high GPA, means you have better chance of success in medical school than somebody else with a lower GPA and MCAT score. They still have to do well in med school. Fail at that, and your out. Succeed in med school and you still have to demonstrate competency as a resident. Sure, you can cheat your way through undergrad, cheat your way on the MCAT, and probably even cheat your way though med school, but fortunately, it's a lot harder to cheat your way through residency. Sure, like any profession there are bad doctors out there, but at least doctors have a much more stringent screening process and training process than most other professions.
"Health Insurance company offers $3 million dollar bounty for technical-sounding excuse to raise premiums"
Another good reason for NAT is that you don't have to pay your ISP for multiple IP addresses. Do you think ISPs will off unlimited IP addresses for free when they start using IPv6? I don't. Without NAT, does this mean we'll have to pay a few extra dollars per month for each device in our house? Let''s see, in my household of 3 people, I've got 3 desktops, 2 laptops, a Wii, an Apple TV, 2 iPhones, and Blu-Ray player. That's 10. Let's say I get one for free, and my ISP charges an extra $5 per IP address, that's an extra $45 a month. I may have a few more devices in my house than a lot of people, but still, people would only put up with not having NAT if they don't have to pay extra for additional IP addresses. Or is it a bad assumption that ISPs will still want to charge for extra IPs?
From TFA: "SolarReserve is hoping to begin construction toward the end of 2011." Doesn't say when they plan to actually have it functioning. From their own press release on SolarReserve's website, they still have to get environmental approval from BLM and Wester Area Power Administration and "anticipates concluding financing arrangements by mid-2011 in order to begin full on-site construction in the third quarter of 2011."
Aren't most mammals generally, well, furry? Perhaps being covered in fur reduces UV exposure to the skin so such an enzyme is no longer needed, therefore furry critters with more photolyase don't tend to reproduce more?
Why don't yanks take part in F1?
Because there's too much advertising money from NASCAR (Non-Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks) to care about anything else.