Or they are using 3rd party service providers to analyse their data in ways that they are neither capable or experienced in for internal use. In exactly the same way that you provide you banks statements and receipts to your accountant.
It's an internal business transaction so it would vary from company to company. Most likely though there was an attachment to the email which would be a form of some kind. If that form was completed properly there would be limited reason to not perform the transaction.
On top of that $40m is not a large amount of money to transfer in 1 go. Especially not in a manufacturing environment.
If the videos have been processed to h.264 or h.265 then yes you will see almost no improvement at all. In fact your files will most likely be larger.
However that wasn't the premise I was basing it on. I was basing it on uncompressed mpegs or avi's taken straight off the recording device. That is certainly what I use for my home videos and it wouldn't make sense to process them into something like 264 as it makes them a huge pain to work with in video editing software. I also made an assumption, I know mother of all fuckups, that if he has 2tb of photos they are most likely in RAW. Otherwise that is a whole lot of photos as the OP doesn't mention video at all.....
LTO almost always achieves a 2:1 compression using SLDC unless the data is pre-compressed or particularly random resulting in no compression. For the purposes of photos or video a 2:1 ration would be a safe assumption to use.
LTOs will read their own generation and the tapes of 3 previous generations. They will also write to their own and the previous generation of tapes. It is this strict adherence to a standard which makes them such great backup options.
I don't understand what you mean about drives with 1 digit indicator? Given HP and IBM are both primary contributors to the LTO project and have access to the same materials I don't see much in the way of difference.
Go onto ebay and buy an 2nd hand LTO3 or LTO4 tape drive for $150 - $300. Plug it in, write your files to the tape. For 2tb you would need 3 LTO3 tapes (assuming compression 800gb each). Take said tapes and drive them to another house.
Decide what timeframe of loss is acceptable. ie 4 weeks, 4 months, 12 months. That is you maximum backup cycle time. Every X period of time take a new set of tapes to your offsite backup location. Buy tapes equal to at least 3 full cycles, that way on your third backup trip you take the oldest set home and re-use them.
This is the process I use every 3 months and I have an HP Ultrium 960 sitting on top of my NAS. I also use your normal google drive type backup, but it is my second stage, rather than first stage backup. I'm not quite at the same size as you, 1.1tb, so it's 2 tapes not 3. I bought a box of 50 new lto3 tapes for $100.
Ah yeah they do...... Mine does. And I would happily pay a huge chunk of overage charges as well. Assuming my ISP wouldn't forgive them which is what I would expect would happen.
Because just maybe it could save someone. Because the person buried under the rubble was playing pokemon go and carrying at 16000mah battery pack. Because maybe the person has been turning their phone on for 5 minutes then turning it off when they have no signal. Because maybe the emergency workers in you area might be able to use it to communicate back to base where as for what ever other reason they couldn't have.
I mean seriously? Why wouldn't you? I've read a heap of the comments about how insane you would have to be and all the legal risk you would be at but we're not talking about leaving it permanently unsecured, we are talking about a short period of time during a national emergency where people around you are buried under collapsed buildings!!
Christ I get it, you have you NAS full of your super sensitive material, well turn the fucking thing off then. This is slashdot ffs, are you seriously telling me that you don't have the capability to turn off a computer you don't want someone to access?
People are dying, infrastructure has been damaged. Who knows what state their mobile network is in, perhaps it's not possible to bring in wifi hotspots.
The chances that if all people unsecure their wifis that your connection will even get used is pretty small. The chances yours gets used by a malicious actor is vanishingly small. The chances that your open wifi saves a life is also tiny, however it might. So I just don't get why someone wouldn't be willing to take on a little, essentially insignificant, risk if it might save someone.
If an earthquake or similar disaster happens near me, not only would I happily open my network, but I would be out there trying to physically help people, so I could just turn everything off for a couple of days as I'm not using it. Maybe I'm the strange one.
I think you are getting into the semantics of what is legal and what isn't there. I get it that you feel that the constitution should be the basis of all laws and powers of the government but it isn't and hasn't been for a long time. Laws and legislation are passed by the government because they have the power to pass them and enforce them, and while there is always the risk of civil uprising that is no different then if the rule causing an issue was written into the constitution.
Most other countries don't have a constitution that has as many explicit clauses as the US one, and some, such as England, don't even have one. So a constitution per se is not inherently more legally binding than anything else simply because its a constitution.
Did you read the link that I gave you? It specifically covers the sanctioning of otherwise illegal activity and given that is part of their legislative function the qualified immunity would extend to those orders.
Also the constitution hardly outlines all the powers that are available to the government. You may not like it but there is a huge load of case law which supports the practice and it is written into the acts outlining the FBI powers.
Part 1. Otherwise illegal activity by an FBI agent or employee in an undercover operation relating to activity in violation of federal criminal law that does not concern a threat to the national security or foreign intelligence must be approved in conformity with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations. Approval of otherwise illegal activity in conformity with those guidelines is sufficient and satisfies any approval requirement that would otherwise apply under these Guidelines.
Law enforcement members are covered by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The supreme court has previously made this ruling: [o]ur decisions have recognized immunity defenses of two kinds. For officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of “absolute immunity.” The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, and of judges, in their judicial functions, now is well settled. Our decisions also have extended absolute immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions, and the President of the United States. For executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm. [W]e [have] acknowledged that high officials require greater protection than those with less complex discretionary responsibilities.
As for your legislation sections 509,510,533, and 534 of title 28, United States Code, and Executive Order 12333 apply. They apply to domestic investigative activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and I have copied the relevant part of the guidelines below. Or I would have if it didn't say it was full of junk characters.
Look at how many people are serving time in the US for minor drug drug charges. I don't think those people went into it thinking they would get caught but evidence mounts up pretty quickly that people are caught and in large numbers.
No a bigger issue is that for a lot of people the risk of prison isn't enough of a disincentive because their current situation is so utterly shit.
Also you need to keep in mind that the FBI / DEA etc are finite in resources. They simply cannot have an officer on every corner.
Something tells me that that particular legal question has been asked many many many times and the legal standing is known. Informants and allowing crimes to pass un-punished in exchange for catching bigger crimes is hardly a new concept.
You are right that it will be a combination of both. But if your aim is, for example, to bust a drug cartel then sticking every street dealer you find in prison will make that extremely difficult if not impossible.
The real issues come about when law enforcement ends up working too closely with a particular person turning a blind eye to their activities to target others. James Bulger is a prime example of this.
No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.
The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.
No I understood where you were coming from. In my head I was thinking about how hard it would be to implement in the US because so much of what politics appears to be, from the outside looking in, is getting people to vote rather than convincing them to vote a certain way.
You would have to convince both parties that 95% voter turn out wouldn't skew the results in favour of one over the other. Which is basically impossible.
I thought you might be interested in the structure though and how it can be possible to build something where people have faith in the voting system, even if they aren't always happy with the choices. Voting here actually has the feel of a bit of a relaxed get together. Sure people whinge about having to go and do it and how they would rather sit on the couch, but you go out and everyone is happy. After you voted there is always the sausage sizzle, which has become such a thing it is nicknamed the democracy sausage, and the CWA selling cakes.
I don't know what happened in the US that split people so clearly along the democrat / republican lines and to split them so far. It's not a good place to be.
The AEC, Australian Electoral Commission, is held at arms length from the ruling party government. It requires an act of parliament to change any of the rules and given the make-up of the Australian government it would be very difficult for one party to pass rules that favour them over the other.
In addition there is a 3 person body which consists of either a current or retired federal judge, a statistician and the current head of the AEC. They are charged with the management of the process and oversight of the AEC to ensure accuracy of the election.
It's worth noting though that there is a huge difference in attitude between Australia and the US at election time. Australia doesn't have the rallies or the level of energy that the US has around an election. I just can't imagine people trying to block others from voting here.
Mobile polling AEC mobile polling teams visit many electors who are not able to get to a polling place. Mobile polling facilities are set up in some hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote areas of Australia. Mobile polling is carried out around Australia prior to election day and on election day.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they are using 3rd party service providers to analyse their data in ways that they are neither capable or experienced in for internal use. In exactly the same way that you provide you banks statements and receipts to your accountant.
It's an internal business transaction so it would vary from company to company. Most likely though there was an attachment to the email which would be a form of some kind. If that form was completed properly there would be limited reason to not perform the transaction.
On top of that $40m is not a large amount of money to transfer in 1 go. Especially not in a manufacturing environment.
US law indemnifies law makers and other government officials in these cases.
If the videos have been processed to h.264 or h.265 then yes you will see almost no improvement at all. In fact your files will most likely be larger.
However that wasn't the premise I was basing it on. I was basing it on uncompressed mpegs or avi's taken straight off the recording device. That is certainly what I use for my home videos and it wouldn't make sense to process them into something like 264 as it makes them a huge pain to work with in video editing software. I also made an assumption, I know mother of all fuckups, that if he has 2tb of photos they are most likely in RAW. Otherwise that is a whole lot of photos as the OP doesn't mention video at all.....
LTO almost always achieves a 2:1 compression using SLDC unless the data is pre-compressed or particularly random resulting in no compression. For the purposes of photos or video a 2:1 ration would be a safe assumption to use.
LTOs will read their own generation and the tapes of 3 previous generations. They will also write to their own and the previous generation of tapes. It is this strict adherence to a standard which makes them such great backup options.
I don't understand what you mean about drives with 1 digit indicator? Given HP and IBM are both primary contributors to the LTO project and have access to the same materials I don't see much in the way of difference.
It's video that pushes it up. I have lots of video of my kids growing up and I don't want to lose that.
Go onto ebay and buy an 2nd hand LTO3 or LTO4 tape drive for $150 - $300. Plug it in, write your files to the tape. For 2tb you would need 3 LTO3 tapes (assuming compression 800gb each). Take said tapes and drive them to another house.
Decide what timeframe of loss is acceptable. ie 4 weeks, 4 months, 12 months. That is you maximum backup cycle time. Every X period of time take a new set of tapes to your offsite backup location. Buy tapes equal to at least 3 full cycles, that way on your third backup trip you take the oldest set home and re-use them.
This is the process I use every 3 months and I have an HP Ultrium 960 sitting on top of my NAS. I also use your normal google drive type backup, but it is my second stage, rather than first stage backup. I'm not quite at the same size as you, 1.1tb, so it's 2 tapes not 3. I bought a box of 50 new lto3 tapes for $100.
Ah yeah they do...... Mine does. And I would happily pay a huge chunk of overage charges as well. Assuming my ISP wouldn't forgive them which is what I would expect would happen.
Because just maybe it could save someone. Because the person buried under the rubble was playing pokemon go and carrying at 16000mah battery pack. Because maybe the person has been turning their phone on for 5 minutes then turning it off when they have no signal. Because maybe the emergency workers in you area might be able to use it to communicate back to base where as for what ever other reason they couldn't have.
I mean seriously? Why wouldn't you? I've read a heap of the comments about how insane you would have to be and all the legal risk you would be at but we're not talking about leaving it permanently unsecured, we are talking about a short period of time during a national emergency where people around you are buried under collapsed buildings!!
Christ I get it, you have you NAS full of your super sensitive material, well turn the fucking thing off then. This is slashdot ffs, are you seriously telling me that you don't have the capability to turn off a computer you don't want someone to access?
People are dying, infrastructure has been damaged. Who knows what state their mobile network is in, perhaps it's not possible to bring in wifi hotspots.
The chances that if all people unsecure their wifis that your connection will even get used is pretty small. The chances yours gets used by a malicious actor is vanishingly small. The chances that your open wifi saves a life is also tiny, however it might. So I just don't get why someone wouldn't be willing to take on a little, essentially insignificant, risk if it might save someone.
If an earthquake or similar disaster happens near me, not only would I happily open my network, but I would be out there trying to physically help people, so I could just turn everything off for a couple of days as I'm not using it. Maybe I'm the strange one.
I think you are getting into the semantics of what is legal and what isn't there. I get it that you feel that the constitution should be the basis of all laws and powers of the government but it isn't and hasn't been for a long time. Laws and legislation are passed by the government because they have the power to pass them and enforce them, and while there is always the risk of civil uprising that is no different then if the rule causing an issue was written into the constitution.
Most other countries don't have a constitution that has as many explicit clauses as the US one, and some, such as England, don't even have one. So a constitution per se is not inherently more legally binding than anything else simply because its a constitution.
When your legal system becomes the realm of financial investment trading you KNOW your system is broken.
I look forward to the creation of a new stock exchange. Lets call it LAWDAC. You can now day trade on court cases.
Did you read the link that I gave you? It specifically covers the sanctioning of otherwise illegal activity and given that is part of their legislative function the qualified immunity would extend to those orders.
Also the constitution hardly outlines all the powers that are available to the government. You may not like it but there is a huge load of case law which supports the practice and it is written into the acts outlining the FBI powers.
Part 1.
Otherwise illegal activity by an FBI agent or employee in an undercover operation relating to activity in violation of federal criminal law that does not concern a
threat to the national security or foreign intelligence must be approved in conformity with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Federal Bureau of
Investigation Undercover Operations. Approval of otherwise illegal activity in conformity with those guidelines is sufficient and satisfies any approval
requirement that would otherwise apply under these Guidelines.
Law enforcement members are covered by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The supreme court has previously made this ruling: [o]ur decisions have recognized immunity defenses of two kinds. For officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of “absolute immunity.” The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, and of judges, in their judicial functions, now is well settled. Our decisions also have extended absolute immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions, and the President of the United States. For executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm. [W]e [have] acknowledged that high officials require greater protection than those with less complex discretionary responsibilities.
As for your legislation sections 509,510,533, and 534 of title 28, United States Code, and Executive Order 12333 apply. They apply to domestic investigative activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and I have copied the relevant part of the guidelines below. Or I would have if it didn't say it was full of junk characters.
Source - https://www.justice.gov/archiv... The relevant section is on page 33.
Look at how many people are serving time in the US for minor drug drug charges. I don't think those people went into it thinking they would get caught but evidence mounts up pretty quickly that people are caught and in large numbers.
No a bigger issue is that for a lot of people the risk of prison isn't enough of a disincentive because their current situation is so utterly shit.
Also you need to keep in mind that the FBI / DEA etc are finite in resources. They simply cannot have an officer on every corner.
Something tells me that that particular legal question has been asked many many many times and the legal standing is known. Informants and allowing crimes to pass un-punished in exchange for catching bigger crimes is hardly a new concept.
https://www.rt.com/usa/fbi-cri...
Describes them as informants on the payroll. I don't have a link to their source.
One thing I read posted the informant count at 15000
You are right that it will be a combination of both. But if your aim is, for example, to bust a drug cartel then sticking every street dealer you find in prison will make that extremely difficult if not impossible.
The real issues come about when law enforcement ends up working too closely with a particular person turning a blind eye to their activities to target others. James Bulger is a prime example of this.
No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.
The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.
Maybe. But just because something is in a diplomatic cable doesn't mean it is in the public interest or that someone's privacy has no value.
No I understood where you were coming from. In my head I was thinking about how hard it would be to implement in the US because so much of what politics appears to be, from the outside looking in, is getting people to vote rather than convincing them to vote a certain way.
You would have to convince both parties that 95% voter turn out wouldn't skew the results in favour of one over the other. Which is basically impossible.
I thought you might be interested in the structure though and how it can be possible to build something where people have faith in the voting system, even if they aren't always happy with the choices. Voting here actually has the feel of a bit of a relaxed get together. Sure people whinge about having to go and do it and how they would rather sit on the couch, but you go out and everyone is happy. After you voted there is always the sausage sizzle, which has become such a thing it is nicknamed the democracy sausage, and the CWA selling cakes.
I don't know what happened in the US that split people so clearly along the democrat / republican lines and to split them so far. It's not a good place to be.
Purely if you're interested - http://democracysausage.org/
The AEC, Australian Electoral Commission, is held at arms length from the ruling party government. It requires an act of parliament to change any of the rules and given the make-up of the Australian government it would be very difficult for one party to pass rules that favour them over the other.
In addition there is a 3 person body which consists of either a current or retired federal judge, a statistician and the current head of the AEC. They are charged with the management of the process and oversight of the AEC to ensure accuracy of the election.
It's worth noting though that there is a huge difference in attitude between Australia and the US at election time. Australia doesn't have the rallies or the level of energy that the US has around an election. I just can't imagine people trying to block others from voting here.
Mobile polling
AEC mobile polling teams visit many electors who are not able to get to a polling place. Mobile polling facilities are set up in some hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote areas of Australia. Mobile polling is carried out around Australia prior to election day and on election day.
You can also request a postal vote which is delivered to you and comes in a reply paid envelope.