Sorry, that's dumb. Unless you're talking about something really sensitive (like nuclear launch codes) a DOD-grade wipe program (such as Boot and Nuke) is more than adequate. It's extremely hard to recover data from such a drive, and it's simply beyond the resources of your common identity thief.
Plus it leaves you with hardware that people can still use. Physically destroying a drive to protect your social security number is a bit much. Especially if such sensitive info on your drive is encrypted, as mine is.
And if you do have nuclear launch codes on your hard drive, your procedure is not even close to adequate. Most of the platters are still intact, and it's quite conceivable that a determined expert unconstrained by cost could recover data not in the bore holes.
Remember how the movie It's a Wonderful Life used to be played in the afternoon on every single station with air time to fill leading up to Christmas? This happened because the movie bombed in the box office, and the studio didn't bother to renew the copyright.
Then Aaron Spelling bought up various IP rights relating to the movie, such as ownership of a song used in one scene. He assumed control over distribution of the movie, based on a complicated legal theory that a lot of IP lawyers consider totally bogus. But this theory has never been challenged in court, and never will be — nobody's going to start an expensive legal battle over their right to show a movie without paying a fee.
Another one that really bothers me: the documentary Mad Hot Ballroom, about NYC elementary school kids learning ballroom dancing. Lots of music, of course, and that ended up costing them lots of money in "clearance fees" for the right to use it. How much? By the time it went to DVD, $140,000, almost half the cost of making the movie.
People who make this kind of movie don't have a lot of cash to throw around, so they did what they could to minimize it. At first, they only paid for the rights for a couple of weeks, so they could show the film on the festival circuit, and get some investors to cover the rest. They also dubbed over any music that they thought wasn't important to the movie, such as a scene where some kids are playing a video game.
One particular outrageous case: there's a scene where a woman is walking down the street, and her cell phone rings for 6 seconds before she answers it. The ring tone is the theme from Rocky, and the director decided she had to have that little bit of music to make the scene work. For that she needed clearance from Sprint (ring tone rights) and EMI (publishing rights). Sprint saw it as product placement and let her have clearance for free. But EMI wanted $10K! She finally bargained them down to $2K. Even so, she winces every time she see that scene, and has to tell herself that that six seconds was worth that much.
She told an interviewer that if had known what a big hassle music clearance was going to be, she probably wouldn't have made the movie.
Now, all you amateur lawyers are screaming FAIR USE! FAIR USE!. And for once you're right. Every lawyer I've heard talk about the subject agrees that music that happens to be overheard while making a documentary is fair use; only music performed for the film requires clearance. This is not just pro-electronic-free types. This includes pro-industry lawyers with a very narrow definition of fair use!
But despite the unanimity of legal opinion, this hasn't really been tested in court. Insurance companies that bond productions prefer to err on the side of caution, and the entertainment conglomerates that control facilities and distribution networks have an interest in keeping things narrow. Everybody agrees that if there's ever a test case, the documentary-use-is-fair-use doctrine will almost certainly prevail.
But will there ever be a test case? Again, money is an issue. When you're struggling to raise a hundred K or two to get your indie documentary made, an expensive court battle is just not an option.
Legal joke: "Sir, I've examined the evidence, and you have an extremely good case. The only question I have for you is this: How much justice can you afford?"
What do you mean by "literally destroyed?" Taking the disk apart and smashing the platters with a hammer? Somebody with the right resources could still reassemble the disks and recover the data. Perhaps you need to dissolve them in acid? Expensive, and there are environment issues.
Show me any evidence that somebody has been able to recover data on disks wiped by DOD-grade software, and I'll concede that you have a point. Going beyond that just so you can claim it's "literally destroyed" is pure security theater.
Jeez, talk about overkill. For most purposes, wiping the disk is perfectly adequate. If your hat is made of tinfoil, use software that implements DoD 5220.22M. But really, if you're up against somebody who can recover data after even a basic destructive overwrite (someone like the NSA), they already know all your secrets — assuming they even care that you exist.
One thing I love about Linux is the rapid development and frequent updates that allow me to run the latest versions of all my favorite software packages.
Though not a Linux geek, I see the same thing on a smaller scale when Firefox keeps offering to update my plugins. I should probably turn this feature off, because every once in a while I get an update that breaks the whole browser.
Not a big fan of automatic updates. Bad idea to upgrade something without analyzing the benefits and risks.
Incidentally, my name appears in the "Thanks" section of this book. Which doesn't mean I actually contributed anything to it. Many years ago (don't recall how long, but the woolly mammoth had just made the endangered species list) I reviewed the system administration chapter from a book called "A Practical Guide to UNIX". My resulting credit said that I had contributed mightily to this chapter. UNIX System administration has changed a lot since then, and I'm now probably the farthest thing from an expert on the subject this side of John McCain. So I was not miffed when Sobell reduced my credit to a mere mention. Indeed, he probably should take me out altogether.
Somehow the idea that U.S. units are called "Imperial" units has taken root. That term only applies to a system used in the British Empire/Commonwealth (hence the name) before they went metric. The U.S system is "English units" (because it's based on units that were widely used in England at the time of American independence) or "U.S. Customary Units." The two systems are very close (length and weight are the same) but not identical (volume units are quite different, even thought the names are the same).
In most other contexts, I'd just say, "OK, sloppy usage eventually becomes the standard, like 'broadband' instead of 'high-bitrate'. Been happening since language was invented, not going to change."
But in this case you have terms that are defined in standards. And miscommunication can cause much wackiness. For example, suppose I need 10 gallons of something. The nearest store is just across the border in Canada, and they're metric, so I use Google to convert units and come up with 45.5 liters. Nice and simple, right?
Wrong. I only needed a little less than 38 liters. The U.S. gallon is 20% smaller!
OK, this particular example is kind of artificial, because most people would just say "gallon" and Google assumes that "gallon" means "U.S. gallon". Still, you need to be careful with this stuff. Like, suppose you're putting fuel in an airplane!
Of course, all this extra confusion is yet another reason for the U.S. to go metric. I work for for a computer manufacturer that not only sells widely in metric countries, our actual production is outsourced to companies that are mostly in metric countries. Does this cause headaches? You bet!
Too late. Scotty has been replaced by Scotty 2.0, AKA Shawn of the Trek. Like all other Star Trek 2.0 characters, he's too busy demonstrating his attitude to solve any technical problems.
Only Spock 1.0 is still available. (I wonder what he makes of the relationship between Spock 2.0 and Uhura 2.0. Don't they know about Pon Far?) Alas, his EOL, though postponed many times, is now impending.
Notice that the submitter's email address is info@allpinouts.org. Obviously he decided some self-promotion was in order, without considering his server's ability to handle the resulting traffic.
Right, because he's the only politician that ever made an overoptimistic prediction. Any comments about his choice of condiments?
Conservatives have every right to criticize Obama. No, they have a duty — it's the job of the people out of power to keep the people in power honest. But can you please stop being so lazy and criticizing him for trivial stuff that NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT? I realize that's requires reading and thinking, which is hard work. But hey, Freedom isn't Free(tm).
Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier. Not only does it justify your self-absorbed lifestyle, it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!
Maybe if you were interested in actual argument you could have gone to the trouble of saying, "No, I've tasted it and it doesn't have any flavor" instead of just contradicting me. See the link in my sig for further assistance.
Since you're the rare Obama critic who doesn't see Pure Evil in his every move (such as his choice of condiments!) perhaps you could share some of your list of O's "many mistakes". I think he's actually done surprisingly well.
But more to the point, I crave an intelligent argument with a right-winger whose rhetoric goes beyond infantile insults and weird conspiracy mongering. When the conservatives were in charge, their abuse of logic and rhetoric would drive me up the wall. But now that they're out of power, their arguments are just a depressing sign of intellectual sloth. I guess they've had it too easy for too long.
People, get it together! It's your job as the opposition to keep us liberals honest! And it's a job you're not doing! Come one! Start pulling your weight! Isn't Personal Responsibility one of those Bennettish Virtues you keep harping on?
Tapped? What's with the Mainstream Media's latest buzzword?
Sigh. I guess anybody that reports actual news (as opposed to bloviating idiots) is "mainstream media." I've heard this use of "tap" for as long as I can remember. The OED says it goes back to the middle of the last century (that they can document):
1952 E. O'NEILL Moon for Misbegotten I. 55 He was tapped for an exclusive Senior Society at the Ivy university to which his father had given millions. 1972 J. MOSEDALE Football ii. 13 Sports Illustrated magazine tapped him..as its 'Sportsman of the Year'. 1977Time 23 May 13/3 Britain's youthful Foreign Secretary David Owen announced last week that he had tapped Jay, at 40, to serve as Ambassador to Washington.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that's dumb. Unless you're talking about something really sensitive (like nuclear launch codes) a DOD-grade wipe program (such as Boot and Nuke) is more than adequate. It's extremely hard to recover data from such a drive, and it's simply beyond the resources of your common identity thief.
Plus it leaves you with hardware that people can still use. Physically destroying a drive to protect your social security number is a bit much. Especially if such sensitive info on your drive is encrypted, as mine is.
And if you do have nuclear launch codes on your hard drive, your procedure is not even close to adequate. Most of the platters are still intact, and it's quite conceivable that a determined expert unconstrained by cost could recover data not in the bore holes.
Remember how the movie It's a Wonderful Life used to be played in the afternoon on every single station with air time to fill leading up to Christmas? This happened because the movie bombed in the box office, and the studio didn't bother to renew the copyright.
Then Aaron Spelling bought up various IP rights relating to the movie, such as ownership of a song used in one scene. He assumed control over distribution of the movie, based on a complicated legal theory that a lot of IP lawyers consider totally bogus. But this theory has never been challenged in court, and never will be — nobody's going to start an expensive legal battle over their right to show a movie without paying a fee.
Another one that really bothers me: the documentary Mad Hot Ballroom, about NYC elementary school kids learning ballroom dancing. Lots of music, of course, and that ended up costing them lots of money in "clearance fees" for the right to use it. How much? By the time it went to DVD, $140,000, almost half the cost of making the movie.
People who make this kind of movie don't have a lot of cash to throw around, so they did what they could to minimize it. At first, they only paid for the rights for a couple of weeks, so they could show the film on the festival circuit, and get some investors to cover the rest. They also dubbed over any music that they thought wasn't important to the movie, such as a scene where some kids are playing a video game.
One particular outrageous case: there's a scene where a woman is walking down the street, and her cell phone rings for 6 seconds before she answers it. The ring tone is the theme from Rocky, and the director decided she had to have that little bit of music to make the scene work. For that she needed clearance from Sprint (ring tone rights) and EMI (publishing rights). Sprint saw it as product placement and let her have clearance for free. But EMI wanted $10K! She finally bargained them down to $2K. Even so, she winces every time she see that scene, and has to tell herself that that six seconds was worth that much.
She told an interviewer that if had known what a big hassle music clearance was going to be, she probably wouldn't have made the movie.
Now, all you amateur lawyers are screaming FAIR USE! FAIR USE! . And for once you're right. Every lawyer I've heard talk about the subject agrees that music that happens to be overheard while making a documentary is fair use; only music performed for the film requires clearance. This is not just pro-electronic-free types. This includes pro-industry lawyers with a very narrow definition of fair use!
But despite the unanimity of legal opinion, this hasn't really been tested in court. Insurance companies that bond productions prefer to err on the side of caution, and the entertainment conglomerates that control facilities and distribution networks have an interest in keeping things narrow. Everybody agrees that if there's ever a test case, the documentary-use-is-fair-use doctrine will almost certainly prevail.
But will there ever be a test case? Again, money is an issue. When you're struggling to raise a hundred K or two to get your indie documentary made, an expensive court battle is just not an option.
Legal joke: "Sir, I've examined the evidence, and you have an extremely good case. The only question I have for you is this: How much justice can you afford?"
What do you mean by "literally destroyed?" Taking the disk apart and smashing the platters with a hammer? Somebody with the right resources could still reassemble the disks and recover the data. Perhaps you need to dissolve them in acid? Expensive, and there are environment issues.
Show me any evidence that somebody has been able to recover data on disks wiped by DOD-grade software, and I'll concede that you have a point. Going beyond that just so you can claim it's "literally destroyed" is pure security theater.
Jeez, talk about overkill. For most purposes, wiping the disk is perfectly adequate. If your hat is made of tinfoil, use software that implements DoD 5220.22M. But really, if you're up against somebody who can recover data after even a basic destructive overwrite (someone like the NSA), they already know all your secrets — assuming they even care that you exist.
And mandatory in new bathrooms where I live. Still, I wouldn't use my laptop in a tub, GFI or not. Captain Murphy has enough business.
I'm a tech writer, which means I do trivia for a living. You do not want to get into a useless-little-fact war with me!
One thing I love about Linux is the rapid development and frequent updates that allow me to run the latest versions of all my favorite software packages.
Though not a Linux geek, I see the same thing on a smaller scale when Firefox keeps offering to update my plugins. I should probably turn this feature off, because every once in a while I get an update that breaks the whole browser.
Not a big fan of automatic updates. Bad idea to upgrade something without analyzing the benefits and risks.
Incidentally, my name appears in the "Thanks" section of this book. Which doesn't mean I actually contributed anything to it. Many years ago (don't recall how long, but the woolly mammoth had just made the endangered species list) I reviewed the system administration chapter from a book called "A Practical Guide to UNIX". My resulting credit said that I had contributed mightily to this chapter. UNIX System administration has changed a lot since then, and I'm now probably the farthest thing from an expert on the subject this side of John McCain. So I was not miffed when Sobell reduced my credit to a mere mention. Indeed, he probably should take me out altogether.
Then add a note to the discussion page for this article.
Don't complain about it. Fix it.
Avoirdupois only covers weights.
Somehow the idea that U.S. units are called "Imperial" units has taken root. That term only applies to a system used in the British Empire/Commonwealth (hence the name) before they went metric. The U.S system is "English units" (because it's based on units that were widely used in England at the time of American independence) or "U.S. Customary Units." The two systems are very close (length and weight are the same) but not identical (volume units are quite different, even thought the names are the same).
In most other contexts, I'd just say, "OK, sloppy usage eventually becomes the standard, like 'broadband' instead of 'high-bitrate'. Been happening since language was invented, not going to change."
But in this case you have terms that are defined in standards. And miscommunication can cause much wackiness. For example, suppose I need 10 gallons of something. The nearest store is just across the border in Canada, and they're metric, so I use Google to convert units and come up with 45.5 liters. Nice and simple, right?
Wrong. I only needed a little less than 38 liters. The U.S. gallon is 20% smaller!
OK, this particular example is kind of artificial, because most people would just say "gallon" and Google assumes that "gallon" means "U.S. gallon". Still, you need to be careful with this stuff. Like, suppose you're putting fuel in an airplane!
Of course, all this extra confusion is yet another reason for the U.S. to go metric. I work for for a computer manufacturer that not only sells widely in metric countries, our actual production is outsourced to companies that are mostly in metric countries. Does this cause headaches? You bet!
Too late. Scotty has been replaced by Scotty 2.0, AKA Shawn of the Trek. Like all other Star Trek 2.0 characters, he's too busy demonstrating his attitude to solve any technical problems.
Only Spock 1.0 is still available. (I wonder what he makes of the relationship between Spock 2.0 and Uhura 2.0. Don't they know about Pon Far?) Alas, his EOL, though postponed many times, is now impending.
Notice that the submitter's email address is info@allpinouts.org. Obviously he decided some self-promotion was in order, without considering his server's ability to handle the resulting traffic.
Pff. Maybe nobody can rise above prejudice. But at least some of us try. As opposed to ranting talk show idiots who piss all the concept.
Right, because he's the only politician that ever made an overoptimistic prediction. Any comments about his choice of condiments?
Conservatives have every right to criticize Obama. No, they have a duty — it's the job of the people out of power to keep the people in power honest. But can you please stop being so lazy and criticizing him for trivial stuff that NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT? I realize that's requires reading and thinking, which is hard work. But hey, Freedom isn't Free(tm).
Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier. Not only does it justify your self-absorbed lifestyle, it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!
It's not laziness either. Anyway, TPP didn't talk about kickbacks.
You're correct. But how is controlling costs "laziness"?
Pipe down, the grownups are trying to talk.
If you can't be bothered to defend your opinions, why should anybody care what you think? Note that I use the word "think" very loosely.
Maybe if you were interested in actual argument you could have gone to the trouble of saying, "No, I've tasted it and it doesn't have any flavor" instead of just contradicting me. See the link in my sig for further assistance.
Since you're the rare Obama critic who doesn't see Pure Evil in his every move (such as his choice of condiments!) perhaps you could share some of your list of O's "many mistakes". I think he's actually done surprisingly well.
But more to the point, I crave an intelligent argument with a right-winger whose rhetoric goes beyond infantile insults and weird conspiracy mongering. When the conservatives were in charge, their abuse of logic and rhetoric would drive me up the wall. But now that they're out of power, their arguments are just a depressing sign of intellectual sloth. I guess they've had it too easy for too long.
People, get it together! It's your job as the opposition to keep us liberals honest! And it's a job you're not doing! Come one! Start pulling your weight! Isn't Personal Responsibility one of those Bennettish Virtues you keep harping on?
Sigh. I guess anybody that reports actual news (as opposed to bloviating idiots) is "mainstream media." I've heard this use of "tap" for as long as I can remember. The OED says it goes back to the middle of the last century (that they can document):
That sounds less than plausible. I haven't ever tasted gold (have you?) but most metals have a distinct taste.
Any more more authoritative bullshit you wish to share?
Sigh. Did you not get the ironic humor of my post? Or did you just not read my sig? I'm guessing both.