You know what we got with a single consistent architecture for PC CPUs? The need to use ARM chips.
For years there have been more promising options for instruction sets, and even the basic design of the chips. None of them were taken seriously because we were stuck with a standard.
Now, let's keep our standard, it's good for many things. But ARM is meant to solve some of the problems that it created, so why the hell would we want to give it the same problems?
I feel bad replying to such a long (and well written) post so shortly, but I do in fact agree with a lot of what you said there. Though I will say that I had always kind of figured car tracking was allowed without a warrant because it wasn't that big a deal, you're in public, your car isn't you, etc. I'm not saying I buy those things myself, I just figured that was the general gist of the rational for it. I'm interested in your take on it too.
However if we are to say that it's okay as long as there's enough of a cost (time/money/otherwise) involved then where do we draw that line? Not that I expect you to actually have an answer for me, but it's an interesting question.
you clearly didn't read my post despite responding to it. I was very clear about the lack of any evidence of intrusion. Frankly what they did is no different than having a cruiser follow him around which they can already do.
However, some other posters that *did* read my post have made it pretty clear that attaching something to the car was illegal, so that's fair.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that his car stopped being his property, the place was the [insert anything that isn't his] property.
I guess the primary part I was unclear about was that the FBI was *not* really tracking him, but his car. They can track his car legally without a device, so I was unclear as to why it would be illegal to use a device to do so. However another poster pointed out that there are laws clearly pointing out what someone can put on your car.
I think you've pretty much taken care of my questions, I'm pretty satisfied.
Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting the car wasn't his property... I was only wondering about the fact that it was in public (and thus didn't require any inherent evilness to place the device). You've given a pretty reasonable answer to that though.
Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal
Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car) 2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so 3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.
Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.
I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
1) I'm not a lawyer, I don't need to talk like one.
2) While I did perhaps over generalize by saying "foreign nations", in this case it really doesn't matter. Manning gave it to the whole world, in which I assure you the US does have enemies
You aren't actually arguing for your point anymore, you're just trying to nit pick mine with logical fallacies and semantics so I'll go away and you can pretend you were right.
By the way, do you really think that because Bush wasn't tried for his war crimes that no one should be?
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Now, whether or not the military laws cite #2 or #3 as "treason" specifically, I assure you there are rules about exactly those two things. I'm perfectly allowed to use words as they are defined.
Secondly, handing military secrets over to foreign nations could most definitely and reasonably be taken as giving aid to the countries enemies.
I just re-read my comment again and realized that I did say "no matter the content, that is treason" which is at odds with what I responded to you with.
I guess what I should have said is "no matter the content, that is against the rules". I can agree that it's not fundamentally treason.
Oh I'm sure the day will come, probably sooner rather than later... They'll start running checks to see if I'm using genuine windows despite me running osx/linux and such. But when it does, hopefully there will be another option for me to use until it starts being creepy, and so on and so on.
But the fact that Bing will start doing it eventually doesn't excuse Google doing it.
For the record, yes I am willing to pay a nominal fee for the use of a really good search engine that isn't creepy; I just don't think any exist.
Well so in fairness I used treason just as a simple example... Though given the scope of the leak he performed I'd say treason probably fits.
If in fact you could successfully argue that he didn't break any rules, then we're done here... I'm working under the assumption that he did break the rules (because that's the context of the discussion, not because I always assume guilt)
Well ideally he would have some recourse within the system itself, or would not have willingly joined it in the first place. I know that I wouldn't join a military that didn't have some reasonable system in place for dealing with corruption further up the chain.
If everyone refused to join the military until some reform happened the leak wouldn't have been needed... and drafts of unwilling soldiers don't score governments a lot of points. I don't see the US citizenry trying very hard for reform, so they must not think that the military did anything wrong.
*big, bold, super huge caveat* What I'm suggesting is not the quick way to make change, nor is it always effective... but it is the right way to do it in a system that allows such changes. He chose an eye for an eye, and I think that puts him in the guilty corner.
I've cleaned others' PCs for forever and a day, and I've always wondered about this.
malware = malicious software trojan = malicious software pretending to be good software
However, most of my experience with so called malware is things like fake virus scanners and browser bars and weather gadgets, etc. To me that seems pretty tojan-esque.
Does it have to contain a hijacking element in order to be considered a trojan? That would make sense for the analogy, but I've never heard it described that way.
As per the norm, the summary has little to do with the article.
The scale won't compress, it will slide. There will still be high bandwidth users in the future, just as there were in the past. As a side note, how is this in anyway news?
1) Manning signs up with the military... in doing so he specifically agrees to be held accountable for pesky little things like treason. 2) Manning commits treason.
Why shouldn't he be held accountable?
Your analogy is missing a big element... Rosa Parks was being discriminated against for no reason. Manning willingly agreed to those rules, so it's not enough to say "he did good by breaking the rules". He still broke something he agreed to uphold and the punishment is warranted on that grounds alone.
In a perfect world he would have gotten many people in the US military/government tried for war crimes, but he still leaked military secrets to the public and no matter the content that is treason. Just because other people did really bad stuff doesn't give him card blanche to do it too (unless you believe it does, in which case it's a different though equally interesting conversation).
I invite you to change my mind on this, but you'll have to do a lot better than racism for your analogy.
I don't need advertising companies watching everything I do. Google doesn't just watch my searches, they watch my traffic from every site with google analytics or google ads on it or anything else. Bing watches my searches, I'm fine with that. When Google stops being creepy I'll be happy to use their search again, until then they don't get any of my information so long as I can help it.
Frankly I'd almost use Google search anyways and just try to block the information vampire part, but it's so prevalent that it's easiest to just block google completely.
Actually I and everyone I know that uses Bing is quite the opposite. I've gone through and changed all of my default searches from Google to Bing (safari, chrome, firefox, etc). I have chrome installed in a vm that's not allowed to contact google in any way shape or form and have blocked every little google tentacle I possibly can.
I don't need advertising companies watching everything I do under the guise of "free stuff".
All of these places use a tactic very similar to mine, and any other competent sysadmin. They restore a working copy of it so that users are uninterrupted and then perform forensics on the system that went down so they can solve the problem.
I hate to jump to unfair conclusions, so I'm hoping that you'll reply and explain yourself. Given that comment though, you seem to be exactly the type of person this article/summary is about. Rebooting a misbehaving server was never the correct answer, and still isn't. When you do that you lose valuable diagnostic information. It could mean the difference between days of downtime when the failure comes back in a more catastrophic manner, or being immune to the problem going forward.
VM is amazing because it allows you to do both without any other special redundancy/failover/etc. You can migrate the running broken server, replacing it with a working copy without losing that vital data. The only difference here is that you don't have to have downtime to figure out the problem anymore.
As I said, please do respond and correct me if I've misjudged you... But based on your comment you sound like a very bad sysadmin.
I don't know about all that many other linux server admins, but I could easily be misrepresented as one of these "redeploy solves everything" people if someone wasn't paying attention.
When a server goes down, my responsibility is not to figure out why, it is to get it the hell back up. Virtualization allows me to do that very, very quickly by restoring a backup or redeploying an identical server. As far as management/users/etc are concerned that's the sum total of what I do when something happens. In reality I'm taking the existing server out of our production pool and replacing it with a working version. I then spend as long as it takes figuring out exactly what went wrong with the broken server so that I can fix it/prevent it in the future.
There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with getting a new server up and running immediately. Anyone that would spend time finding the root of a problem before doing at least basic damage control shouldn't have a job. VM lets me "damage control" by getting the new server up and running in about 2 minutes, so that I can get to the hard part without people breathing down my neck.
First: I completely agree with you in every way about the ad.
Second: Hidden between the lines of the commercial is the actual feature they're advertising. Windows Live Mesh has some form of DDNS that you can register your PCs to and connect anywhere in the world (possibly with a connection broker to avoid port issues?). That's the feature they're trying to advertise and failing miserably at.
I would prefer that my institutions most important data isn't trusted to the hands of the IT department. In fact, I've worked very hard to keep it that way. I don't want to be responsible for the data. I'm happy to create the security measures for it, and happy to train those with the data on how to protect it. I have no interest in and am not paid enough to be directly handling that stuff. The alternative to that is to trust your IT staff with the companies secrets, and start vetting them like CEOs. If you pay them like CEOs too, that's fine.
Also, for the record, I don't trust Google's teams even as far as I can throw them. I know a few Googlers and trust me that while there are some very bright people at Google, there are also some utter knuckle draggers. Incompetence aside, let's remember that Google is an ad company. I wouldn't trust even the most competent ad company with my data.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what we got with a single consistent architecture for PC CPUs? The need to use ARM chips.
For years there have been more promising options for instruction sets, and even the basic design of the chips. None of them were taken seriously because we were stuck with a standard.
Now, let's keep our standard, it's good for many things. But ARM is meant to solve some of the problems that it created, so why the hell would we want to give it the same problems?
I feel bad replying to such a long (and well written) post so shortly, but I do in fact agree with a lot of what you said there. Though I will say that I had always kind of figured car tracking was allowed without a warrant because it wasn't that big a deal, you're in public, your car isn't you, etc. I'm not saying I buy those things myself, I just figured that was the general gist of the rational for it. I'm interested in your take on it too.
However if we are to say that it's okay as long as there's enough of a cost (time/money/otherwise) involved then where do we draw that line? Not that I expect you to actually have an answer for me, but it's an interesting question.
refuse the officer entry to my vehicle
phone is bugged
you clearly didn't read my post despite responding to it. I was very clear about the lack of any evidence of intrusion. Frankly what they did is no different than having a cruiser follow him around which they can already do.
However, some other posters that *did* read my post have made it pretty clear that attaching something to the car was illegal, so that's fair.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that his car stopped being his property, the place was the [insert anything that isn't his] property.
I guess the primary part I was unclear about was that the FBI was *not* really tracking him, but his car. They can track his car legally without a device, so I was unclear as to why it would be illegal to use a device to do so. However another poster pointed out that there are laws clearly pointing out what someone can put on your car.
I think you've pretty much taken care of my questions, I'm pretty satisfied.
Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting the car wasn't his property... I was only wondering about the fact that it was in public (and thus didn't require any inherent evilness to place the device). You've given a pretty reasonable answer to that though.
Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal
Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so
3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.
Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.
I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
Ah arguing semantics, the last resort.
1) I'm not a lawyer, I don't need to talk like one.
2) While I did perhaps over generalize by saying "foreign nations", in this case it really doesn't matter. Manning gave it to the whole world, in which I assure you the US does have enemies
You aren't actually arguing for your point anymore, you're just trying to nit pick mine with logical fallacies and semantics so I'll go away and you can pretend you were right.
By the way, do you really think that because Bush wasn't tried for his war crimes that no one should be?
First of all:
Treason (noun)
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Now, whether or not the military laws cite #2 or #3 as "treason" specifically, I assure you there are rules about exactly those two things. I'm perfectly allowed to use words as they are defined.
Secondly, handing military secrets over to foreign nations could most definitely and reasonably be taken as giving aid to the countries enemies.
How am I missing that point? it's exactly what I said...
I just re-read my comment again and realized that I did say "no matter the content, that is treason" which is at odds with what I responded to you with.
I guess what I should have said is "no matter the content, that is against the rules". I can agree that it's not fundamentally treason.
Oh I'm sure the day will come, probably sooner rather than later... They'll start running checks to see if I'm using genuine windows despite me running osx/linux and such. But when it does, hopefully there will be another option for me to use until it starts being creepy, and so on and so on.
But the fact that Bing will start doing it eventually doesn't excuse Google doing it.
For the record, yes I am willing to pay a nominal fee for the use of a really good search engine that isn't creepy; I just don't think any exist.
Yep that makes perfect sense, thanks :)
Well so in fairness I used treason just as a simple example... Though given the scope of the leak he performed I'd say treason probably fits.
If in fact you could successfully argue that he didn't break any rules, then we're done here... I'm working under the assumption that he did break the rules (because that's the context of the discussion, not because I always assume guilt)
Well ideally he would have some recourse within the system itself, or would not have willingly joined it in the first place. I know that I wouldn't join a military that didn't have some reasonable system in place for dealing with corruption further up the chain.
If everyone refused to join the military until some reform happened the leak wouldn't have been needed... and drafts of unwilling soldiers don't score governments a lot of points. I don't see the US citizenry trying very hard for reform, so they must not think that the military did anything wrong.
*big, bold, super huge caveat* What I'm suggesting is not the quick way to make change, nor is it always effective... but it is the right way to do it in a system that allows such changes. He chose an eye for an eye, and I think that puts him in the guilty corner.
I've cleaned others' PCs for forever and a day, and I've always wondered about this.
malware = malicious software
trojan = malicious software pretending to be good software
However, most of my experience with so called malware is things like fake virus scanners and browser bars and weather gadgets, etc. To me that seems pretty tojan-esque.
Does it have to contain a hijacking element in order to be considered a trojan? That would make sense for the analogy, but I've never heard it described that way.
As per the norm, the summary has little to do with the article.
The scale won't compress, it will slide. There will still be high bandwidth users in the future, just as there were in the past. As a side note, how is this in anyway news?
1) Manning signs up with the military... in doing so he specifically agrees to be held accountable for pesky little things like treason.
2) Manning commits treason.
Why shouldn't he be held accountable?
Your analogy is missing a big element... Rosa Parks was being discriminated against for no reason. Manning willingly agreed to those rules, so it's not enough to say "he did good by breaking the rules". He still broke something he agreed to uphold and the punishment is warranted on that grounds alone.
In a perfect world he would have gotten many people in the US military/government tried for war crimes, but he still leaked military secrets to the public and no matter the content that is treason. Just because other people did really bad stuff doesn't give him card blanche to do it too (unless you believe it does, in which case it's a different though equally interesting conversation).
I invite you to change my mind on this, but you'll have to do a lot better than racism for your analogy.
Hahahahahaha
Come back when you've administered a server in reality. We'll talk then.
I don't need advertising companies watching everything I do. Google doesn't just watch my searches, they watch my traffic from every site with google analytics or google ads on it or anything else. Bing watches my searches, I'm fine with that. When Google stops being creepy I'll be happy to use their search again, until then they don't get any of my information so long as I can help it.
Frankly I'd almost use Google search anyways and just try to block the information vampire part, but it's so prevalent that it's easiest to just block google completely.
Actually I and everyone I know that uses Bing is quite the opposite. I've gone through and changed all of my default searches from Google to Bing (safari, chrome, firefox, etc). I have chrome installed in a vm that's not allowed to contact google in any way shape or form and have blocked every little google tentacle I possibly can.
I don't need advertising companies watching everything I do under the guise of "free stuff".
Except they don't.
All of these places use a tactic very similar to mine, and any other competent sysadmin. They restore a working copy of it so that users are uninterrupted and then perform forensics on the system that went down so they can solve the problem.
You just don't see the rest of it
I hate to jump to unfair conclusions, so I'm hoping that you'll reply and explain yourself. Given that comment though, you seem to be exactly the type of person this article/summary is about. Rebooting a misbehaving server was never the correct answer, and still isn't. When you do that you lose valuable diagnostic information. It could mean the difference between days of downtime when the failure comes back in a more catastrophic manner, or being immune to the problem going forward.
VM is amazing because it allows you to do both without any other special redundancy/failover/etc. You can migrate the running broken server, replacing it with a working copy without losing that vital data. The only difference here is that you don't have to have downtime to figure out the problem anymore.
As I said, please do respond and correct me if I've misjudged you... But based on your comment you sound like a very bad sysadmin.
I don't know about all that many other linux server admins, but I could easily be misrepresented as one of these "redeploy solves everything" people if someone wasn't paying attention.
When a server goes down, my responsibility is not to figure out why, it is to get it the hell back up. Virtualization allows me to do that very, very quickly by restoring a backup or redeploying an identical server. As far as management/users/etc are concerned that's the sum total of what I do when something happens. In reality I'm taking the existing server out of our production pool and replacing it with a working version. I then spend as long as it takes figuring out exactly what went wrong with the broken server so that I can fix it/prevent it in the future.
There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with getting a new server up and running immediately. Anyone that would spend time finding the root of a problem before doing at least basic damage control shouldn't have a job. VM lets me "damage control" by getting the new server up and running in about 2 minutes, so that I can get to the hard part without people breathing down my neck.
First: I completely agree with you in every way about the ad.
Second: Hidden between the lines of the commercial is the actual feature they're advertising. Windows Live Mesh has some form of DDNS that you can register your PCs to and connect anywhere in the world (possibly with a connection broker to avoid port issues?). That's the feature they're trying to advertise and failing miserably at.
I would prefer that my institutions most important data isn't trusted to the hands of the IT department. In fact, I've worked very hard to keep it that way. I don't want to be responsible for the data. I'm happy to create the security measures for it, and happy to train those with the data on how to protect it. I have no interest in and am not paid enough to be directly handling that stuff. The alternative to that is to trust your IT staff with the companies secrets, and start vetting them like CEOs. If you pay them like CEOs too, that's fine.
Also, for the record, I don't trust Google's teams even as far as I can throw them. I know a few Googlers and trust me that while there are some very bright people at Google, there are also some utter knuckle draggers. Incompetence aside, let's remember that Google is an ad company. I wouldn't trust even the most competent ad company with my data.