It is pretty explicit, maybe more than words. It's a sad that such conflicts happen, but its usual in larger projects. Sometimes the LKML and Linus especially lack the delicatness to say things, even if they may be right, saying things in a way that do not offend people is often the best way to keep their attention and motivate them going toward the direction wished.
Let's hope Alan will continue its work on other areas for the benefits of the community.
They're doomed in the same way IBM was doomed back in the late 80's./blockquote> In the late 80's IBM stock was in the mid $20s. Now it is 6X higher at $120. As a Microsoft stockholder, I sure hope you are right!
Of course you need to consider inflation. According to the Consumer Price Index (Cf. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ ), $120 in 2008 has the same buying power as $45.64 in 1980. So basically you are not 6 times higher, but something like twice;)
From another point of view if you put the $20 in 1980 on a placement giving you 6.9% per year you would have had around $120 today as well. So it is not really an impressive performance from a purely financial point of view (on 28 years).
He's 100% guilty of: #1 - Forgery - he made up reverse trade that did not exist. When clients were asked about large sums of money that they bet against Jerome's futures, they had no idea what the bank was talking about. That's because he forged all of them. #2 - Unlawful use of "access device" to commit #1. That's the IDs he borrowed from the back office. In fact it is not so obvious.
In the IT system computing the risks of the trader's position, one can create virtual counterpart for a deal to overcome some risk computation. This is a feature, but it must be used wisely (ie being justified). If he was successful in using this feature as a hack, it is probably the risk department fault, because traders use to tell them cracks, and they get impressed...
Most traders are using this facility to go beyond there limits, because even if you go a little bit beyond your limit it helps winning more money. You can't really win much within the risks officially allowed.
To sum up I think responsibilities are shared. I hope the investigation will clarify those points.
One thing that looks really weird is the fact they only noticed it when he lost some money, while he has been doing it since 2 years already. But I have never heard the bank saying they are refusing the money won that way...
Another interesting point is that if 7B$ were really lost by the bank, it means that other people on the market won 7B$. The justice and the senate are trying to track down those people... I don't know if we will ever see the big picture of this.
I reply because there are still some interesting points that needs to be explained. We do not live in a Manichean world;)
Explain to me how a trader making unauthorized trades with unauthorized sums of money is not responsible. Because it is usual to take such action as a trader, even if it is not official.
First the numbers must be forgotten because they are not yet determined. Furthermore it is normal for traders to manipulate very large amount of money, especially on his market (arbitrage). Due to the ROI of this sector, banks use large amounts to generate more money.
Second first elements in the investigation indicates that he was doing it successfully since 2005... he has won a lot of money that way, for who ? the bank. Now he is losing since beginning 2008, and guess what;)
I just want you to let the justice determine the responsible, before commenting and blaming someone.
I have worked precisely with these people in this bank, I still have a lot of friends there. That's why I am not so sure the trader is the guy to blame. He has probably made mistakes, but I am pretty sure its action have been endorsed by its hierarchy. He is not that genius described by the media. Unfortunately for him, there will be few people to help him as no one wants to take any risk for his career.
But I am sure a lot of people have already some doubts about the bank story. This will help make sure the investigation is carefully conducted.
Here in France someone is not guilty until it has been proven. Just let the justice do its work, we can then speak about it using some hopefully serious investigation to base our comments on.
Several things are unclear: - Why and How can this man be responsible for a such thing ? - What gives its employer the right to judge him ? (nothing according to French laws) - Is it really a fraud or is it a professional mistake ? This point is still unclear according to the justice. - How are the amount accounted ? According to the latest news the bank itself is responsible for the loss and it was determined by the bank strategy not the trader's.
I think this is a very complicated situation involving various interests (financial places, politics, justice...). It is not obvious how things will be sorted out, speculating about it will not help.
Of course Google will have to implement some algorithm to avoid publishing recognizable pictures of someone. But a lot of technologies are already available to solve this problem. One of the most impressive I have seen is inpainting: once you have selected the area you wish to remove from the picture it rebuilds the missing part... There is a Gimp plugin that perform this kind of operation: http://www.manucornet.net/Informatique/Gimp_Textur ize.php
Ah yes I almost forgot... it turns out that the author is now working at Google. I am pretty sure that with all those people working there they can do something about it;)
I just said that data are not stored. I didn't say the logs are harmless.
However you must be pretty innocent if you believe your connection logs were anonymous before this law. The only thing you can hide is the data you send, but you cannot hide the path it took since you do not control it. I know Tor network exist but I don't support it for some ethical reasons (ie content been exchanged on this network).
Therefore I think encrypting data you send is enough for privacy, if they need to know more, they will come to you or the other end of the communication. But it seems to me enough work to limit those investigations. I have nothing to hide, if they want to know what I said/wrote/sent through any media using an encrytpion, they can just ask me. It is the best way to keep control of my privacy from my point of view.
[...] If that happens, how long before the MPAA and RIAA start asking to take a peek at the data too, as they have in Europe?"
If you had read the article about what will be done in Europe, you would know they only store connection logs (phone, internet...) and not the data.
This makes quite a big difference.
Please don't travestite reality.
I mean it is useless because: - How useful is it to hack a test system ? - How useful is it to hack data that will be publicly available when the system will be functional ? If this is the real secondary secured data stream, prove it and I will be interested. - How useful is it to hack data that don't have any meaning (according to the article) ? However since there are not enough satellites I doubt it could be useful...
That is what I meant. Thanks to the authors. You have great skill to hack a test system, and learn nothing more from it but it's weak encryption (afaik it is not an encryption but a synchronized communication protocol...) that will even be published;) The worst is that they will probably get funds to continue their work because of the fuzz around that. I am just disappointed to see such a bad research article been slashdotted.
First Galileo is only in testing phase, therefore nothing tells you the signal encryption they are using is the definitive one. I would rather think they are testing and they don't care if someone is getting it.
Second have you ever heard of firmware upgrade ? I guess encryption will be updated when the satelites will be in production, and there will not be any problem since it is not being used in any device yet.
Thank you Cornell people for this useless article. Another Cornell box ?
Only if you don't mind having no privacy and always need a working Internet connection to do any work.
You will probably be able to do your work locally with your browser since it is possible for AJAX application to delay data sending. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem for Spreadsheet or Word like application.
I think the reviewer is probably a former BeOS user. He used to have problems with programs such as Firefox (display bugs). This comment is interesting for people like me who used BeOS before, but stopped because of the lack of support of the open source comunity.
However I agree this is not an in-depth review, just the experience of a user.
As review are often biased, I prefer to know what the review did or experienced rather than having a lot of numbers and charts that often don't mean anything since you may have a lot of different hardware configuration.
What I can say about BeOS is that it was really good (back in the 2000) for realtime audio compositing, with really low latency. Even with my low-end computer, I managed to get good multimedia performance.
I think it is worth trying, just to feel/know that a system can be/behave differently with another OS, even on the same hardware.
The law should have been more general, not only about the cookies. The real problem is that our web activities are stored everywhere to fill in commercial databases. The way it's done doesn't matter: cookie on the client, server side trick, etc.
I hope other countries will realize that it's the real issue.
PS: France already has a such law (I mean a general one protecting the individuals).
I've read what your tools are about, however I don't feel like it's something people MUST have unlike bc. I guess bc is less handy, but it does a great job and has always been enough for command line computations.
Most scripting languages are freely available on any platform. I think it may be a good starting point to learn programming: programming process quite simple, no (or few) prequisites and now you can do anything by scripting (Cf. perl).
PS: I don't mean that's easy to write scripts, I think good script writers are rare, but I think it's apropriate as a astarting point.
Have you tried Linux Familiar or Intimate ?
on
Accessing WebDAV on PDAs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I own an iPaq, and I've tried the Familiar distribution as well as the intimate which is a full blown one.
I'm pretty sure that using the last one you may have tools that are WebDAV enabled.
On what architecture are you programming ? Are you sure you have enough room on the stack ? What about the 0 in exit(0), should'nt you use a predefined constant instead ?
Well, I think even the shortest program brings us a lot of question... Sure it'll work most of time but isn't it the real problem ?
Slashdot Mirror
The most interesting point is missing from the article quote: a patch was provided by Alan Cox to commit his decision:
--- MAINTAINERS~ 2009-07-23 15:36:41.000000000 +0100
+++ MAINTAINERS 2009-07-28 20:09:32.200685827 +0100
@@ -5815,10 +5815,7 @@
S: Maintained
TTY LAYER
-P: Alan Cox
-M: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
-S: Maintained
-T: stgit http://zeniv.linux.org.uk/~alan/ttydev/
+S: Unmaintained
F: drivers/char/tty_*
F: drivers/serial/serial_core.c
F: include/linux/serial_core.h
It is pretty explicit, maybe more than words.
It's a sad that such conflicts happen, but its usual in larger projects.
Sometimes the LKML and Linus especially lack the delicatness to say things,
even if they may be right, saying things in a way that do not offend people
is often the best way to keep their attention and motivate them going toward
the direction wished.
Let's hope Alan will continue its work on other areas for the benefits of the community.
Of course you need to consider inflation. ;)
According to the Consumer Price Index (Cf. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ ), $120 in 2008 has the same buying power as $45.64 in 1980.
So basically you are not 6 times higher, but something like twice
From another point of view if you put the $20 in 1980 on a placement giving you 6.9% per year you would have had around $120 today as well.
So it is not really an impressive performance from a purely financial point of view (on 28 years).
Segmentation Fault (core dumped)
#1 - Forgery - he made up reverse trade that did not exist. When clients were asked about large sums of money that they bet against Jerome's futures, they had no idea what the bank was talking about. That's because he forged all of them.
#2 - Unlawful use of "access device" to commit #1. That's the IDs he borrowed from the back office. In fact it is not so obvious.
In the IT system computing the risks of the trader's position, one can create virtual counterpart for a deal to overcome some risk computation. This is a feature, but it must be used wisely (ie being justified). If he was successful in using this feature as a hack, it is probably the risk department fault, because traders use to tell them cracks, and they get impressed...
Most traders are using this facility to go beyond there limits, because even if you go a little bit beyond your limit it helps winning more money. You can't really win much within the risks officially allowed.
To sum up I think responsibilities are shared.
I hope the investigation will clarify those points.
One thing that looks really weird is the fact they only noticed it when he lost some money, while he has been doing it since 2 years already. But I have never heard the bank saying they are refusing the money won that way...
Another interesting point is that if 7B$ were really lost by the bank, it means that other people on the market won 7B$. The justice and the senate are trying to track down those people... I don't know if we will ever see the big picture of this.
I reply because there are still some interesting points that needs to be explained.
We do not live in a Manichean world
First the numbers must be forgotten because they are not yet determined. Furthermore it is normal for traders to manipulate very large amount of money, especially on his market (arbitrage). Due to the ROI of this sector, banks use large amounts to generate more money.
Second first elements in the investigation indicates that he was doing it successfully since 2005... he has won a lot of money that way, for who ? the bank. Now he is losing since beginning 2008, and guess what
I just want you to let the justice determine the responsible, before commenting and blaming someone.
I have worked precisely with these people in this bank, I still have a lot of friends there.
That's why I am not so sure the trader is the guy to blame.
He has probably made mistakes, but I am pretty sure its action have been endorsed by its hierarchy.
He is not that genius described by the media.
Unfortunately for him, there will be few people to help him as no one wants to take any risk for his career.
But I am sure a lot of people have already some doubts about the bank story.
This will help make sure the investigation is carefully conducted.
Here in France someone is not guilty until it has been proven.
;)
Just let the justice do its work, we can then speak about it using some hopefully serious investigation to base our comments on.
Several things are unclear:
- Why and How can this man be responsible for a such thing ?
- What gives its employer the right to judge him ? (nothing according to French laws)
- Is it really a fraud or is it a professional mistake ? This point is still unclear according to the justice.
- How are the amount accounted ? According to the latest news the bank itself is responsible for the loss and it was determined by the bank strategy not the trader's.
I think this is a very complicated situation involving various interests (financial places, politics, justice...).
It is not obvious how things will be sorted out, speculating about it will not help.
I am giving up my karma on this one
This is not really a problem.
r ize.php
;)
Of course Google will have to implement some algorithm to avoid publishing recognizable pictures of someone. But a lot of technologies are already available to solve this problem. One of the most impressive I have seen is inpainting: once you have selected the area you wish to remove from the picture it rebuilds the missing part... There is a Gimp plugin that perform this kind of operation: http://www.manucornet.net/Informatique/Gimp_Textu
Ah yes I almost forgot... it turns out that the author is now working at Google.
I am pretty sure that with all those people working there they can do something about it
I just said that data are not stored.
I didn't say the logs are harmless.
However you must be pretty innocent if you believe your connection logs were anonymous before this law. The only thing you can hide is the data you send, but you cannot hide the path it took since you do not control it. I know Tor network exist but I don't support it for some ethical reasons (ie content been exchanged on this network).
Therefore I think encrypting data you send is enough for privacy, if they need to know more, they will come to you or the other end of the communication. But it seems to me enough work to limit those investigations. I have nothing to hide, if they want to know what I said/wrote/sent through any media using an encrytpion, they can just ask me. It is the best way to keep control of my privacy from my point of view.
Regards
I mean it is useless because:
;) The worst is that they will probably get funds to continue their work because of the fuzz around that. I am just disappointed to see such a bad research article been slashdotted.
- How useful is it to hack a test system ?
- How useful is it to hack data that will be publicly available when the system will be functional ? If this is the real secondary secured data stream, prove it and I will be interested.
- How useful is it to hack data that don't have any meaning (according to the article) ? However since there are not enough satellites I doubt it could be useful...
That is what I meant. Thanks to the authors. You have great skill to hack a test system, and learn nothing more from it but it's weak encryption (afaik it is not an encryption but a synchronized communication protocol...) that will even be published
Good marketing.
Cornell demonstration is pretty useless.
First Galileo is only in testing phase, therefore nothing tells you the signal encryption they are using is the definitive one. I would rather think they are testing and they don't care if someone is getting it.
Second have you ever heard of firmware upgrade ? I guess encryption will be updated when the satelites will be in production, and there will not be any problem since it is not being used in any device yet.
Thank you Cornell people for this useless article. Another Cornell box ?
You will probably be able to do your work locally with your browser since it is possible for AJAX application to delay data sending. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem for Spreadsheet or Word like application.
I think the reviewer is probably a former BeOS user. He used to have problems with programs such as Firefox (display bugs).
This comment is interesting for people like me who used BeOS before, but stopped because of the lack of support of the open source comunity.
However I agree this is not an in-depth review, just the experience of a user.
As review are often biased, I prefer to know what the review did or experienced rather than having a lot of numbers and charts that often don't mean anything since you may have a lot of different hardware configuration.
What I can say about BeOS is that it was really good (back in the 2000) for realtime audio compositing, with really low latency. Even with my low-end computer, I managed to get good multimedia performance.
I think it is worth trying, just to feel/know that a system can be/behave differently with another OS, even on the same hardware.
It's a shame to have an Ad article like that...
;)
If only it was something new. The only new thing is the marketing concept, the features are not.
I hope not to see such kind of articles anymore on Slashdot.
i-neo
PS: Fortunately they'll be slashdotted
As often, article writers are a bit egocentrics. Did you know there are several governments in here ?
To the article author: I give you 1 troll point
The law should have been more general, not only about the cookies.
The real problem is that our web activities are stored everywhere to fill in commercial databases. The way it's done doesn't matter: cookie on the client, server side trick, etc.
I hope other countries will realize that it's the real issue.
PS: France already has a such law (I mean a general one protecting the individuals).
I've read what your tools are about, however I don't feel like it's something people MUST have unlike bc.
I guess bc is less handy, but it does a great job and has always been enough for command line computations.
Most scripting languages are freely available on any platform. I think it may be a good starting point to learn programming: programming process quite simple, no (or few) prequisites and now you can do anything by scripting (Cf. perl).
PS: I don't mean that's easy to write scripts, I think good script writers are rare, but I think it's apropriate as a astarting point.
I own an iPaq, and I've tried the Familiar distribution as well as the intimate which is a full blown one.
I'm pretty sure that using the last one you may have tools that are WebDAV enabled.
Furthermore, that's all open source. Linux rocks.
On what architecture are you programming ?
Are you sure you have enough room on the stack ?
What about the 0 in exit(0), should'nt you use a predefined constant instead ?
Well, I think even the shortest program brings us a lot of question... Sure it'll work most of time but isn't it the real problem ?