For those who don't know, Google Cloud Print connects Cloud Print-aware applications (across the Web, desktop, and mobile) to any printer
So if I want to print my document to a printer in Bulgaria, no problem! That's just flat out daft. Cloud storage, processing and applications provide ubiquitous accessibility. Cloud printing provides ubiquitous inaccessibility.
Actually, I find cloud print to be very convenient. I print to my home printer while I'm at work and printers at work (my office and remote offices) from home, I have printed to my mom's printer and my father-in-law's printer from another state (easier than sending them a document and helping them print it). It's also zero setup when I get a new computer... as soon as I'm logged into Chrome I can print and it just works. No fiddling with drivers because that was already done once.
Surely there's still somebody with common sense working for Google?!?
Bah. Common sense is usually neither common nor very sensible. But what do I know? I work for Google:P
Harold Shipman? 250+ verified murders? [wikipedia.org] Non-censored words fail me...
Yeah, in a country with a murder rate as low as the UK's that might actually shift it a point...
Yep, but even after removing those, there's still a spike.
By the way, have you heard of the leaded gasoline hypothesis [motherjones.com] for the violent crime rates?
Indeed, I have. It makes a lot of sense, too, though I doubt it's the only element at work. Reality is never simple.
There's no doubt that the structure of effective stories has been studied for millenia, but what's different about this is the degree of detail with which its laid out, including not only the key elements (15, not three or five), their exact sequence and even their timing to a fairly high degree of precision.
Aside: Something that has occurred to me of late (while watching discussion about the Zimmerman trial, actually), is that I think humans have a tendency to fit real-world events into neat, narrative structures that have the same three-act form as good stories. I'm wondering if any news story that achieves really broad penetration of a large population's collective psyche doesn't end up getting "adjusted" until it fits a smooth, memorable narrative arc. This became apparent to me in the case of the Zimmerman trial when I realized that those who argued for guilty and not-guilty verdicts were discussing two rather different versions of the narrative, each of which followed a traditional storytelling arc, and neither of which was overly concerned about including facts that didn't fit the arc. The whole sequence of events, especially when the focus is on the actual evidence, makes a rather lumpy, disjointed tale with false starts and inconvenient edges, but the pro- and anti-Zimmerman stories are both much smoother.
I'm going to start watching to see if that phenomenon arises frequently.
Who noticed the essay following the formula before the end when it pointed it out? I didn't notice until the "all is lost" section, but perhaps more astute readers saw the pattern earlier.
That's right. Gun laws in Britain make no difference whatsoever, in fact the gun murder rate there is ten times higher than in the USA.
Oh. Wait. No it's not. Actually the USA is number 11 on that list and the UK is number 60. But hey, never let facts get in the way of your preconceptions.
Those numbers would be a lot more meaningful except that Britain's murder rate was much, much lower than the US's even before they passed restrictive gun laws. In fact, since the UK has clamped down and the US has been relaxing restrictions, the gap has actually closed considerably (note that I'm not claiming that the changes in gun laws caused the closure of the gap; there's evidence that they are correlated, but the evidence is somewhat equivocal). The murder rate in the UK has risen slightly* while that in the US has fallen dramatically, in fact in 2013 it's expected to reach the lowest rate in over a century -- though that will still be almost triple the UK's rate.
The fact is that murder isn't related to the availability of better tools to commit murder, because adequate tools are absolutely everywhere. It's culture that drives murder, and the US has a more violent culture than the UK.
* The UK murder rate rose consistently and gradually from 1960 through about 2000, when it spiked sharply, peaking in the early 2000s. Since then it's been declining fairly rapidly, and has dropped to early 80s levels. Note that a significant chunk of the 2002 peak was attributable to Dr. Harold Shipman, but even if you subtract the deaths he likely caused, there's still a fairly sharp spike in the murder rate following the 1997 handgun ban.
I clicked the link expecting to find something interesting and novel, perhaps something on par with Kocher's Differential Power Analysis attack, or better. But this guy spent three years to discover that there are a small number of ancient SIMs, not yet removed from service, which use 1DES for securing applet loading? Actually, I'm sure he did no such thing. Typical bad reporting, exacerbated by bad slashdot editing.
It looks to me like his talk is really about countermeasures to mitigate the risk for these ancient SIMs, on the assumption that they can't be replaced immediately. That's worthy of research and a talk, though it's hardly front-page material.
Yeah, that's the real problem in a nutshell: They are becoming OWAT, and ordinary police weapons and tactics should not look like military weapons and tactics.
Yes, that's the true tragedy of the Branch Davidian saga, and the one that motivates conspiracy theorists to believe that the government really wanted to kill them all, and manufactured circumstances to allow it. I tend to attribute such things to stupidity rather than malice, but the argument isn't completely without merit.
And if someone is breaking your door down in the middle of the night, what choice will give you a better result? If it's the police and you shoot back, you'll be carried by six. If if's not the police and you surrender, you may be carried by six.
If that individual is also known to be stockpiling arms, as happens in the US from time to time, then I can see how an armed raid is justifiable.
Or they could, you know, just grab him when he leaves the house to go to work, or to the grocery store. Yeah, it'll cost a little overtime since he'll have to be watched for a couple of days, but that'll be a lot cheaper than the department invests in equipping and training the SWAT team -- and one hell of a lot safer.
It doesn't offer the police officers the same rush, though, which is why they'll argue they really need to gear up and break down his door.
This really is a serious problem. I teach home defense along with my concealed weapon permit classes, and the question always comes up "If someone is breaking into my house, how do I know if it's the police?" The answer, of course, is that you can't know, but if you guess wrong it could cost you your life. Good luck.
In my opinion, raids are simply too risky to be justified unless there's an imminent threat to an innocent's life. The reason for using aggressive entry tactics in the vast majority of cases is to prevent the destruction of evidence. That's simply not a good enough reason the kind of high-risk situation the aggressive tactics produce.
I think there are very rare circumstances in which SWAT really is appropriate, and we should scale SWAT capabilities appropriately. Perhaps each US state should have a single group of state troopers who form such an elite force, and are equipped with transportation that allows them to respond quickly anywhere in the state. A big, populous state like California may need two or three such units. But when every podunk PD has its own SWAT team, their mere existence is going to guaranteed that they get used for all sorts of other things. They're too expensive, and too cool (to the police), to just leave sitting around all the time.
Just release the data and see if anyone has the balls to convict them of something. I bet not.
Ah, you bet not. Well, that decides it then. The CEOs of these corporations need have no fear of being thrown in prison if you "bet not".
Most of the time, corporate actions produce consequences that fall on the corporation as a whole. But in criminal matters, it's not uncommon that the corporate veil is pierced and the individual decisionmakers are prosecuted personally.
One comment says that the only thing the panicked bug reporter knows is that the WLAN password was retrieved in the clear, but it could be that this information actually is encrypted but the retrieval decrypted it.
Google uses SSL for basically everything, so it was almost certainly SSL-encrypted in transit.
Linus can fire people. Linus has fired people. He fired Con Kolivas, for example. All he has to do is to consistently ignore their work until they go away.
The biggest problem with Visual Studio, for me, at least, is that it only runs on Windows. I use a lot of different operating systems, but Windows isn't among them.
The statistics are clear: gun ownership causes more deaths among the family that owns it (child deaths, gun used by attacker etc) than it prevents by protection.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago.
Why, did Georgia pass some law banning carry in the non-secure areas of airports? I know Utah has no such restriction, and I've carried openly in the Salt Lake International airport several times when I was going there but not traveling, and hence didn't need to pass the TSA checkpoint and enter the secure area. I've even been seen carrying openly by airport PD and TSA agents. The cops just gave me a nod.
So, I'm not at all dubious about that story.
Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in.
Why do you say it's as secure a location as you're likely to be in? At most airports police are a bit closer than other public venues, but still a minute or two away. Mostly, though, I carried at the airport because I didn't want to go through the hassle of finding someplace to secure my sidearm while I went in to meet someone.
No, we didn't try fighting over it. If it were me, in a real fight, I'd have drawn and fired from retention position, so there wouldn't have been any time to fight over it unless my assailant started grabbing it before it cleared the holster. I don't know how Zimmerman claims it happened; I haven't followed the details that closely. I'm about the same size as my son (15 years old -- he's gonna be a big guy by the time he's done growing), though about 15 pounds heavier.
Oh, and I should mention: we didn't use a real gun. I teach pistol classes so I have a few "blue guns", which are molded blue plastic replicas of common handguns. We used one of those. Safety first.
I was interested in this trial because I did wonder what laws were broken.
2nd or 3rd degree murder? If GZ approached the kid unnecessarily like a vigilante, I think murder is bordering on a reasonable description.
Based on what definition of murder? Not the one in the written law, which says nothing about an unnecessary approach or an approach "like a vigilante" making a homicide a murder.
This is the GP's point: in a society governed under the rule of law, you can't be tried and convicted except in accordance with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm more interested in watching for it in news stories.
For those who don't know, Google Cloud Print connects Cloud Print-aware applications (across the Web, desktop, and mobile) to any printer
So if I want to print my document to a printer in Bulgaria, no problem! That's just flat out daft. Cloud storage, processing and applications provide ubiquitous accessibility. Cloud printing provides ubiquitous inaccessibility.
Actually, I find cloud print to be very convenient. I print to my home printer while I'm at work and printers at work (my office and remote offices) from home, I have printed to my mom's printer and my father-in-law's printer from another state (easier than sending them a document and helping them print it). It's also zero setup when I get a new computer... as soon as I'm logged into Chrome I can print and it just works. No fiddling with drivers because that was already done once.
Surely there's still somebody with common sense working for Google?!?
Bah. Common sense is usually neither common nor very sensible. But what do I know? I work for Google :P
Interesting... and do Asian news stories also reflect that structure?
Harold Shipman? 250+ verified murders? [wikipedia.org] Non-censored words fail me... Yeah, in a country with a murder rate as low as the UK's that might actually shift it a point...
Yep, but even after removing those, there's still a spike.
By the way, have you heard of the leaded gasoline hypothesis [motherjones.com] for the violent crime rates?
Indeed, I have. It makes a lot of sense, too, though I doubt it's the only element at work. Reality is never simple.
Did you read the article?
There's no doubt that the structure of effective stories has been studied for millenia, but what's different about this is the degree of detail with which its laid out, including not only the key elements (15, not three or five), their exact sequence and even their timing to a fairly high degree of precision.
Aside: Something that has occurred to me of late (while watching discussion about the Zimmerman trial, actually), is that I think humans have a tendency to fit real-world events into neat, narrative structures that have the same three-act form as good stories. I'm wondering if any news story that achieves really broad penetration of a large population's collective psyche doesn't end up getting "adjusted" until it fits a smooth, memorable narrative arc. This became apparent to me in the case of the Zimmerman trial when I realized that those who argued for guilty and not-guilty verdicts were discussing two rather different versions of the narrative, each of which followed a traditional storytelling arc, and neither of which was overly concerned about including facts that didn't fit the arc. The whole sequence of events, especially when the focus is on the actual evidence, makes a rather lumpy, disjointed tale with false starts and inconvenient edges, but the pro- and anti-Zimmerman stories are both much smoother.
I'm going to start watching to see if that phenomenon arises frequently.
Who noticed the essay following the formula before the end when it pointed it out? I didn't notice until the "all is lost" section, but perhaps more astute readers saw the pattern earlier.
That's right. Gun laws in Britain make no difference whatsoever, in fact the gun murder rate there is ten times higher than in the USA.
Oh. Wait. No it's not. Actually the USA is number 11 on that list and the UK is number 60. But hey, never let facts get in the way of your preconceptions.
Those numbers would be a lot more meaningful except that Britain's murder rate was much, much lower than the US's even before they passed restrictive gun laws. In fact, since the UK has clamped down and the US has been relaxing restrictions, the gap has actually closed considerably (note that I'm not claiming that the changes in gun laws caused the closure of the gap; there's evidence that they are correlated, but the evidence is somewhat equivocal). The murder rate in the UK has risen slightly* while that in the US has fallen dramatically, in fact in 2013 it's expected to reach the lowest rate in over a century -- though that will still be almost triple the UK's rate.
The fact is that murder isn't related to the availability of better tools to commit murder, because adequate tools are absolutely everywhere. It's culture that drives murder, and the US has a more violent culture than the UK.
* The UK murder rate rose consistently and gradually from 1960 through about 2000, when it spiked sharply, peaking in the early 2000s. Since then it's been declining fairly rapidly, and has dropped to early 80s levels. Note that a significant chunk of the 2002 peak was attributable to Dr. Harold Shipman, but even if you subtract the deaths he likely caused, there's still a fairly sharp spike in the murder rate following the 1997 handgun ban.
I clicked the link expecting to find something interesting and novel, perhaps something on par with Kocher's Differential Power Analysis attack, or better. But this guy spent three years to discover that there are a small number of ancient SIMs, not yet removed from service, which use 1DES for securing applet loading? Actually, I'm sure he did no such thing. Typical bad reporting, exacerbated by bad slashdot editing.
It looks to me like his talk is really about countermeasures to mitigate the risk for these ancient SIMs, on the assumption that they can't be replaced immediately. That's worthy of research and a talk, though it's hardly front-page material.
Yeah, that's the real problem in a nutshell: They are becoming OWAT, and ordinary police weapons and tactics should not look like military weapons and tactics.
Yes, that's the true tragedy of the Branch Davidian saga, and the one that motivates conspiracy theorists to believe that the government really wanted to kill them all, and manufactured circumstances to allow it. I tend to attribute such things to stupidity rather than malice, but the argument isn't completely without merit.
Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6
And if someone is breaking your door down in the middle of the night, what choice will give you a better result? If it's the police and you shoot back, you'll be carried by six. If if's not the police and you surrender, you may be carried by six.
If that individual is also known to be stockpiling arms, as happens in the US from time to time, then I can see how an armed raid is justifiable.
Or they could, you know, just grab him when he leaves the house to go to work, or to the grocery store. Yeah, it'll cost a little overtime since he'll have to be watched for a couple of days, but that'll be a lot cheaper than the department invests in equipping and training the SWAT team -- and one hell of a lot safer.
It doesn't offer the police officers the same rush, though, which is why they'll argue they really need to gear up and break down his door.
I'm surprised the (otherwise excellent) article neglected to include the Cato Institute's map of botched paramilitary police raids.
This really is a serious problem. I teach home defense along with my concealed weapon permit classes, and the question always comes up "If someone is breaking into my house, how do I know if it's the police?" The answer, of course, is that you can't know, but if you guess wrong it could cost you your life. Good luck.
In my opinion, raids are simply too risky to be justified unless there's an imminent threat to an innocent's life. The reason for using aggressive entry tactics in the vast majority of cases is to prevent the destruction of evidence. That's simply not a good enough reason the kind of high-risk situation the aggressive tactics produce.
I think there are very rare circumstances in which SWAT really is appropriate, and we should scale SWAT capabilities appropriately. Perhaps each US state should have a single group of state troopers who form such an elite force, and are equipped with transportation that allows them to respond quickly anywhere in the state. A big, populous state like California may need two or three such units. But when every podunk PD has its own SWAT team, their mere existence is going to guaranteed that they get used for all sorts of other things. They're too expensive, and too cool (to the police), to just leave sitting around all the time.
No, you don't get it. Stealing from people is fine. Screwing with the government, however...
Just release the data and see if anyone has the balls to convict them of something. I bet not.
Ah, you bet not. Well, that decides it then. The CEOs of these corporations need have no fear of being thrown in prison if you "bet not".
Most of the time, corporate actions produce consequences that fall on the corporation as a whole. But in criminal matters, it's not uncommon that the corporate veil is pierced and the individual decisionmakers are prosecuted personally.
One comment says that the only thing the panicked bug reporter knows is that the WLAN password was retrieved in the clear, but it could be that this information actually is encrypted but the retrieval decrypted it.
Google uses SSL for basically everything, so it was almost certainly SSL-encrypted in transit.
Do you really think any encryption algorithm you are going to use today will stand up to the tools available to script-kiddies in 5 or 10 years?
Yes.
http://www.keylength.com/en/4/
Linus can fire people. Linus has fired people. He fired Con Kolivas, for example. All he has to do is to consistently ignore their work until they go away.
Are you sure your phone hasn't been patched? My Nexus 7 has, according to https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bluebox.labs.onerootscanner
+1
I'd like to see the grid overlaid on the map, with the labels in each box. Then I could easily pick the most memorable of the phrases.
The biggest problem with Visual Studio, for me, at least, is that it only runs on Windows. I use a lot of different operating systems, but Windows isn't among them.
The statistics are clear: gun ownership causes more deaths among the family that owns it (child deaths, gun used by attacker etc) than it prevents by protection.
False. Cite a source or retract.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago.
Why, did Georgia pass some law banning carry in the non-secure areas of airports? I know Utah has no such restriction, and I've carried openly in the Salt Lake International airport several times when I was going there but not traveling, and hence didn't need to pass the TSA checkpoint and enter the secure area. I've even been seen carrying openly by airport PD and TSA agents. The cops just gave me a nod.
So, I'm not at all dubious about that story.
Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in.
Why do you say it's as secure a location as you're likely to be in? At most airports police are a bit closer than other public venues, but still a minute or two away. Mostly, though, I carried at the airport because I didn't want to go through the hassle of finding someplace to secure my sidearm while I went in to meet someone.
No, we didn't try fighting over it. If it were me, in a real fight, I'd have drawn and fired from retention position, so there wouldn't have been any time to fight over it unless my assailant started grabbing it before it cleared the holster. I don't know how Zimmerman claims it happened; I haven't followed the details that closely. I'm about the same size as my son (15 years old -- he's gonna be a big guy by the time he's done growing), though about 15 pounds heavier.
Oh, and I should mention: we didn't use a real gun. I teach pistol classes so I have a few "blue guns", which are molded blue plastic replicas of common handguns. We used one of those. Safety first.
I was interested in this trial because I did wonder what laws were broken.
2nd or 3rd degree murder? If GZ approached the kid unnecessarily like a vigilante, I think murder is bordering on a reasonable description.
Based on what definition of murder? Not the one in the written law, which says nothing about an unnecessary approach or an approach "like a vigilante" making a homicide a murder.
This is the GP's point: in a society governed under the rule of law, you can't be tried and convicted except in accordance with the law.