"The defendant's withholding the passwords caused DTIS to be denied administrative access to the FiberWAN, which constituted a denial of computer services," Judge McCarthy wrote.
The defending not giving up the administrative passwords for his former employer's network didn't cause anyone to be denied administrative access. Their own incompetence and lack of planning were responsible for that.
This whole thing is ridiculous, yet it's still not over... The people who need to be held accountable are the managers responsible for allowing such a major fuck-up to occur with something as critical as they claim.
Not necessarily. It's just geared more towards history, or even engineering, nerds than computer nerds. I'm willing to bet any 11 year old kid who's a civil war buff gets picked on as much as the rest of us did in school. At least until he gets a 700lb cannon...
Clearly, there must be more to this story... The email excerpt alone is hardly "confrontational".
I'd bet there was a more personal confrontation, possibly with a superior, and that email was simply seen as a better excuse to get rid of her than the real reason.
Yep. Apparently some news site picked it up a week later and wrote their own article without the original details, making it front page news all over again. The only thing new is that Symantec gave it a goofy name.
Looks like it was posted ~6:00PM with a timestamp ~8:00AM. I was confused too, seeing it appear for the first time halfway down the page. Then it disappeared from there, when it was corrected and moved back to the top of the page. I think I should go find something better to do tonight...
If they hadn't preloaded all of their images with free trials and bloatware then this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. When I have to setup one of their machines, the first thing I always do is reformat and build a new image anyway without all of the extra crap that shouldn't be there.
Why don't they just make one byte be 4 bits, as the word byte is 4 characters. That would make a gigabyte an effective 536,870,912 bytes , or 512 megabytes /.5 gigabytes. It's just as arbitrary as effectively shaving 70 megabytes off every gigabyte.
Or maybe they could measure gigabytes in base-twenty, as we have twenty fingers and toes combined.
Bits, bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes can all easily be transparent to the user. Who cares if a gigabyte isn't a nice, clean, base ten number?
4 bits, or half a byte, is already called a nybble
And certainly nobody who's not a CS person is going to think "Oh, yeah, I divide the base 10 exponent by 3 and multiply by 10 to get the base 2 exponent because this is a piece of computer equipment!".
Computer science people use the current units because they fit cleanly together and they do not have a direct relation to other normal SI units. It's not like you are going to be trying to divide a gigabyte by a kilogram. It also not like the bits can be made a different size as are bolts to fit into the SI units more naturally.
"Oh, yeah, I divide the base 10 exponent by 3 and multiply by 10 to get the base 2 exponent because this is a piece of computer equipment!
So you think programmers are going to be such much happier thinking that their program will run in 1.048576MB instead of 1MB (Mibibyte for you). How are things going to get when people start rounding because of the long decimals?
They will just think 1MiB... I can't think of any reason to convert it to MB when they're thinking in terms of memory usage. Of course, there's nothing stopping them from doing so, if they wish to.
That's great, except that the Ki- and so on prefixes weren't introduced until several decades after the K- and so on prefixes had been used. I have material from the '60s that talks about KB and means 2^10. Why do you think it's easier to read KB and then have to look up the publication date, see if it is after KiB was introduced, then (if it was) see whether the author actually uses KiB anywhere, or if they use KB with the definition that it had for 40 years.
If you say Ki-, then it's clear that you mean 2^10 and not 10^3. With your preference, either way when someone is using the K- prefix you have to rely on contextual clues to determine which definition someone is really using, regardless of publication date.(If they're talking about network throughput, it's probably 10^3. If they're talking about memory usage then it's probably 2^10. Do the calculations to test whatever you're reading for yourself if you want to be certain.)
The GP is simply suggesting using the correct standard prefix for clarity. Just like everything else in this industry, things change and you can keep up or fall behind. Just because you have books from 40+ years ago using a prefix in a convenient, but technically incorrect, way doesn't mean that we should all just ignore new standard definitions which help to clear up the ambiguity.
By the way, the publishing industry already attempts to resolve your concerns by updating and releasing revised versions of textbooks every now and then.
Or it doesn't, and it fades into obscurity like countless non-notable technologies.
Applications of the technology may fail to catch on and fade into obscurity, but that doesn't prevent someone else from rediscovering using the technology in a new application later on.
Your assuming mile wide lanes. Lets assume 2 lane roads. Normal 12' wide lanes means 48' of width.
5280'long X 48' wide = 253,440sq feet per mile
253,440sqfeet per mile X $43 = $10,897,920 per mile
$10,897,920 per mile X 25,000 miles =
$272,448,000,000.
So $273 billion or so for nationwide energy independence would be pretty cheap if you ask me.
I cant keep my kids eyeglasses from getting scratched up every six months, so im not sure how they will keep the clear covering scratch free...if they cant then that efficiency goes way down I bet.
The article says that there are 25,000 square miles of road in the lower 48 states. So the GP's math would be correct for estimating the cost if we were to be replacing every road in the lower 48 states. In which case, we would also be generating over 3 times more power than the US uses annually.
Sure, because criminalizing drugs has worked so well at changing people's attitude. And prison hardly costs anything to implement, we should just be building more of them.
You're comparing apples to onion rings.
If you want a comparison, then try parking your car in the middle of a city road rather than a parking garage. It's convenient and saves you time, only causeing problems for others trying to drive down that road. However, you may be ticketed/towed.
People aren't running malware on their own machines because it relaxes them or makes them feel good. They do it because it requires the least amount of effort on their part, and has no consequences for them.
Sure, there are MANY people who are unaware of the malware running on their own machine. However, the odds of getting caught would be significantly greater for the people running blatantly noticeable amounts of malware. Plus, a good chunk of that could be solved by educating them. For any education to work they need an incentive to actually learn.
Of course, I haven't really put much thought into it. In fact, I'm quite literally talking about of my ass at the moment... I guess that's why I'm writing this post. Just stuck here in this little room with a weak fan/vent.
You can do alot of damage if your computer is taken over or hacked without your knowledge.
Technically they are just aiding and abetting, not directly doing the damage themselves. Although, there seem many people who simply don't care, "as long as it doesn't affect [their watching porn]." Perhaps if it were treated as a crime, those people may change their attitude.
Just sayin' hypothetically that a laptop was confiscated and the contents of the drive copied. And just sayin' a hidden virus was copied, like one that would not self activate until after it was copied. And theorizing this virus was designed to wipe the hard drive it was copied onto, and it goes to work and does its damage. Or what if the laptop was already unknowingly infected with a virus or trojan, and the infection was copied. Then what happens?
Assuming they notice something affecting their equipment, they'd probably use different equipment to take a closer look. Otherwise, they wouldn't care as it's not their problem...
Slashdot Mirror
You smack them on the nose and shout "no" or "bad" until it finally sticks.
"The defendant's withholding the passwords caused DTIS to be denied administrative access to the FiberWAN, which constituted a denial of computer services," Judge McCarthy wrote.
The defending not giving up the administrative passwords for his former employer's network didn't cause anyone to be denied administrative access. Their own incompetence and lack of planning were responsible for that.
This whole thing is ridiculous, yet it's still not over... The people who need to be held accountable are the managers responsible for allowing such a major fuck-up to occur with something as critical as they claim.
This is totally OT.
Not necessarily. It's just geared more towards history, or even engineering, nerds than computer nerds. I'm willing to bet any 11 year old kid who's a civil war buff gets picked on as much as the rest of us did in school. At least until he gets a 700lb cannon...
Though Daugherty said he is still stunned that he had to get clearance from the NSA for the archaic artillery piece
Why would he need clearance from the NSA?
Clearly, there must be more to this story... The email excerpt alone is hardly "confrontational".
I'd bet there was a more personal confrontation, possibly with a superior, and that email was simply seen as a better excuse to get rid of her than the real reason.
I wonder if they're talking about this trojan http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/08/26/144249/Coder-of-Swiss-Wiretapping-Trojan-Speaks-Out
Yep. Apparently some news site picked it up a week later and wrote their own article without the original details, making it front page news all over again. The only thing new is that Symantec gave it a goofy name.
Does this affect the Mac OS X version, or does at least one of the callers have to be on a PC?
It's written for Windows, like usual, and at least one of the callers would have to be infected.
Source: http://www.megapanzer.com/2009/08/25/skype-trojan-sourcecode-available-for-download/
Sounds like there's going to be new disappointing information coming out in the near future about the Ares program.
Looks like it was posted ~6:00PM with a timestamp ~8:00AM. I was confused too, seeing it appear for the first time halfway down the page. Then it disappeared from there, when it was corrected and moved back to the top of the page. I think I should go find something better to do tonight...
If they hadn't preloaded all of their images with free trials and bloatware then this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. When I have to setup one of their machines, the first thing I always do is reformat and build a new image anyway without all of the extra crap that shouldn't be there.
Seriously? These sound like next generation Valley Girl names, not self-respecting geek prefixes.
When using prefixes that end in 'a' or 'o', I feel macho. Megabyes! Teraflops! Yottapwnage! Yeah, baby!
From my cold, dead hands, Apple.
BTW, who thought of the cutsey name "Apple" anyway? Nice name. Pfft.
Thank you. That's the most truthful reason I've seen for resisting the SI binary prefixes.
Why don't they just make one byte be 4 bits, as the word byte is 4 characters. That would make a gigabyte an effective 536,870,912 bytes , or 512 megabytes / .5 gigabytes. It's just as arbitrary as effectively shaving 70 megabytes off every gigabyte.
Or maybe they could measure gigabytes in base-twenty, as we have twenty fingers and toes combined.
Bits, bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes can all easily be transparent to the user. Who cares if a gigabyte isn't a nice, clean, base ten number?
4 bits, or half a byte, is already called a nybble
And certainly nobody who's not a CS person is going to think "Oh, yeah, I divide the base 10 exponent by 3 and multiply by 10 to get the base 2 exponent because this is a piece of computer equipment!".
Computer science people use the current units because they fit cleanly together and they do not have a direct relation to other normal SI units. It's not like you are going to be trying to divide a gigabyte by a kilogram. It also not like the bits can be made a different size as are bolts to fit into the SI units more naturally.
"Oh, yeah, I divide the base 10 exponent by 3 and multiply by 10 to get the base 2 exponent because this is a piece of computer equipment!
So you think programmers are going to be such much happier thinking that their program will run in 1.048576MB instead of 1MB (Mibibyte for you). How are things going to get when people start rounding because of the long decimals?
They will just think 1MiB... I can't think of any reason to convert it to MB when they're thinking in terms of memory usage. Of course, there's nothing stopping them from doing so, if they wish to.
That's great, except that the Ki- and so on prefixes weren't introduced until several decades after the K- and so on prefixes had been used. I have material from the '60s that talks about KB and means 2^10. Why do you think it's easier to read KB and then have to look up the publication date, see if it is after KiB was introduced, then (if it was) see whether the author actually uses KiB anywhere, or if they use KB with the definition that it had for 40 years.
If you say Ki-, then it's clear that you mean 2^10 and not 10^3. With your preference, either way when someone is using the K- prefix you have to rely on contextual clues to determine which definition someone is really using, regardless of publication date.(If they're talking about network throughput, it's probably 10^3. If they're talking about memory usage then it's probably 2^10. Do the calculations to test whatever you're reading for yourself if you want to be certain.)
The GP is simply suggesting using the correct standard prefix for clarity. Just like everything else in this industry, things change and you can keep up or fall behind. Just because you have books from 40+ years ago using a prefix in a convenient, but technically incorrect, way doesn't mean that we should all just ignore new standard definitions which help to clear up the ambiguity.
By the way, the publishing industry already attempts to resolve your concerns by updating and releasing revised versions of textbooks every now and then.
Or it doesn't, and it fades into obscurity like countless non-notable technologies.
Applications of the technology may fail to catch on and fade into obscurity, but that doesn't prevent someone else from rediscovering using the technology in a new application later on.
So, how will you ever hook up a computer to your brain?
Who wants to? I can't think of anything dumber.
People have always said that about new technology. Eventually someone comes up with a killer application and it takes off.
Your assuming mile wide lanes. Lets assume 2 lane roads. Normal 12' wide lanes means 48' of width.
5280'long X 48' wide = 253,440sq feet per mile
253,440sqfeet per mile X $43 = $10,897,920 per mile
$10,897,920 per mile X 25,000 miles =
$272,448,000,000.
So $273 billion or so for nationwide energy independence would be pretty cheap if you ask me.
I cant keep my kids eyeglasses from getting scratched up every six months, so im not sure how they will keep the clear covering scratch free...if they cant then that efficiency goes way down I bet.
The article says that there are 25,000 square miles of road in the lower 48 states. So the GP's math would be correct for estimating the cost if we were to be replacing every road in the lower 48 states. In which case, we would also be generating over 3 times more power than the US uses annually.
Sure, because criminalizing drugs has worked so well at changing people's attitude. And prison hardly costs anything to implement, we should just be building more of them.
You're comparing apples to onion rings.
If you want a comparison, then try parking your car in the middle of a city road rather than a parking garage. It's convenient and saves you time, only causeing problems for others trying to drive down that road. However, you may be ticketed/towed.
People aren't running malware on their own machines because it relaxes them or makes them feel good. They do it because it requires the least amount of effort on their part, and has no consequences for them.
Sure, there are MANY people who are unaware of the malware running on their own machine. However, the odds of getting caught would be significantly greater for the people running blatantly noticeable amounts of malware. Plus, a good chunk of that could be solved by educating them. For any education to work they need an incentive to actually learn.
Of course, I haven't really put much thought into it. In fact, I'm quite literally talking about of my ass at the moment... I guess that's why I'm writing this post. Just stuck here in this little room with a weak fan/vent.
DAMN! The mods are pissy today
Nah, they just consider it blasphemous when someone impersonates their prophet.
Of course, I'll be modded down as well.
You can do alot of damage if your computer is taken over or hacked without your knowledge.
Technically they are just aiding and abetting, not directly doing the damage themselves. Although, there seem many people who simply don't care, "as long as it doesn't affect [their watching porn]." Perhaps if it were treated as a crime, those people may change their attitude.
How does letting THEM, know who I am, make ME safer?
The same way painting your car red makes it go faster.
And it typed in NO CARRIER for him typed in the catchpa and hit preview and submit twice!
Only unauthenticated anonymous cowards are required to type in a captcha.
Since when is Israel our enemy? They are likely our only real ally and friend in the Middle East.
That doesn't mean their intelligence agency ignores the US:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Ami_Kadish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
Just sayin' hypothetically that a laptop was confiscated and the contents of the drive copied. And just sayin' a hidden virus was copied, like one that would not self activate until after it was copied. And theorizing this virus was designed to wipe the hard drive it was copied onto, and it goes to work and does its damage. Or what if the laptop was already unknowingly infected with a virus or trojan, and the infection was copied. Then what happens?
Assuming they notice something affecting their equipment, they'd probably use different equipment to take a closer look. Otherwise, they wouldn't care as it's not their problem...
Feel free to pass that bong over this way.
Throwing shit at Microsoft is just going to get the FSF's hands smeared in crap.
"Small price to pay for the smiting of one's enemies."