Were the people currently in Guantanamo US citizens or in US jurisdiction at the time of their "arrest"? "We don't like him" seems to be exactly the normal reason for being sent there.
Let's face it, when was the last time the USA didn't take an opportunity to look as hypocritical as possible on the world stage?
The article linked compares the HD Graphics 3000 in the i5-2500k and i7-2600k against the HD Graphics 2000 in the i3-2100. It seems to me that it's impossible to judge the two different GPUs from that comparison because the CPU differences will have a significant effect as well as the GPU differences.
It's be nice to see a graphics performance comparison of an i5-2500 vs an i5-2500k or i7-2600 vs i7-2600k so the non-GPU differences are minimal.
That only holds if avoiding capturing the data frame was part of the spec.
If I was trying to record SSIDs, I'd read the packet containing the SSID then extract and log the SSID. If I was trying to record the first X+64 bytes then I'd record the first X+64 bytes.
If you were writing the code from scratch for a single purpose maybe. If you were leveraging existing code that may, incidentally to your requirements, do other things you may not worry about them too much as long as it achieves, at minimum, what you require.
The software used here was configurable as to whether it logs the data frame (defaulting to capture). If avoiding capturing the data frame wasn't specifically part of the spec for the deployment then:
a) The programmer may not have considered turning it off.
b) Any review may not have considered it an issue.
Uncaught bugs happen during software development and deployment all the time and the issue here wasn't one which affected the stated purpose of the program. As such it's hardly unimaginable that it was a simple oversight.
Geeks tend to be so full of themselves that they assume stupidity rather than subtle intent for any human action they can't explain, but I pride myself in having grown out of the "ppl r just dumb (altho im quite smart)" mindset.
Ironic then that you are the one coming across as being so full of himself, claiming some insight into subtle intent that us poor idiots can't divine.
You seem transfixed on "stupidity". I think it makes more sense to consider fallibility as an inherently human trait, present no matter how "high up" people may be in a "large organisation".
To assert that so much data is useless and must have been recorded accidentally is to reach cult-like levels of apology when referring to the biggest data miner in history.
I humbly suggest that to assert the data must have been recorded intentionally requires an equally uncritical manner of thought.
A single command line option would have spared Google this embarrassment. It wasn't set and went undetected, probably because more attention was put into ensuring that is was capturing the needed information rather than checking it wasn't capturing data they weren't looking at anyway.
The reality is that setting a single command line option would have avoided Google collecting the additional data, however not settin
It's not particularly hard to work out. They were interested in a couple of pieces of information from Wifi (basically SSID and MAC information) but it's not as if they can sniff for only those bits of info. Rather they are going to receive whole packets of information. Their mistake was in not immediately filtering out the parts they weren't interested in prior to writing it to disk.
Google have provided fuller explanations of what happened.
There used to be one that also advised you which ingredients to buy next to most effectively increase the number of cocktails you could make in combination with your existing ingredients. I found that a very useful feature when I was building up my stockpile of goodies. I can't remember what it was called though.....
Agreed. They also seem to be anti-US in their agenda rather than interested in informing the public about corruption worldwide
I think that may just suggest that you simply haven't paid attention to anything not related to the US.
Certainly they have released a lot more on the US recently, however that seems to be simply due to the unprecedented quantity of documents given to them in one leak than intent on their part.
Are we to assume you work in law enforcement?
It's difficult to see how a normal person could interpret his statement as admitting any of those things.
The government, private industry, and even individuals
Even individuals? I'd suggest that's where privacy rights start (and that they should diminish through private industry and government).
For me espionage has to involve one entity gaining an information advantage over another. If the documents were taken and secretly given to another government that would be espionage as the US would be at a disadvantage (it's information would be held by another party but it wouldn't know about it). Widely publishing the documents is different, the US isn't at an information disadvantage (it knows both the content of the leaks and the fact that they are out there).
It seems peculiar to me that if you are an actual spy operating in the US (eg Anna Chapman) you just get sent home while the US seems intent on actually extraditing to the US someone who doesn't obviously have any reason to be considered subject to US law.
Do you really think there was a "media industry" when the US constitution was adopted? There were certainly newspapers but you'd have to consider that freedom of the press would certainly have been intended to include those more likely to be called pamphleteers than newspapers and certainly a long way from a "media industry".
"stay connected after you're done" and "actually pay attention to how much you have downloaded and take it easy"
I think the other factor is likely to be "get onto the torrent early". If you are limited to a tiny up speed like that I don't expect many clients are going to bother you much if there are plenty of other available peers that'll serve faster.
If you are there near the start when the seed may be bottle necked your 64k will be valuable and will remain so until there's more seeds than demand.
You don't need a single "trusted entitity", a web of trust is based on your own prior experience and what others around you will vouch for.
If you have downloaded a torrent signed by someone before and been happy with it your software might be happy downloading more from them without warning. If you haven't seen anything from that person before your software might poll your peers to see if they will vouch for it and ultimately give you a choice one way or another.
Various key servers could be set up to serve trust information but would not present a critical point of failure or (for dodgy torrents) be at much legal risk because they wouldn't be serving anything remotely related to other peoples copyrighted information.
I'm thoroughly humbled by the fact that I have no friggin idea what the summary is saying. Can someone explain this to me in simple terms?
As far as I can tell it's about improper handling of e-waste, specifically e-waste was submitted to Slashdot and rather than handling it properly the Slashdot editors just passed the garbage on to it's readers unmodified.
All you need to do? That doesn't exactly sound easy, especially if EXIF type data is included in the signed data as you'd not only have to project the image correctly but have the camera using settings that are reasonable for the real image.
Any evidence is fakeable, you could assemble custom DNA strands if you wanted to and had sufficient resources.
I think there's a big difference between faking something in an entirely digital fashion and having to undergo difficult physical actions.
That doesn't seem particularly relevant, the main problem here is that everything required to do the signing can be extracted from of the camera.
It's a simple necessity that, regardless of precisely how the signature is generated, all the information required to generate signatures is inside the camera and someone with the desire and resources can pull it out.
I think the only protection would be each camera having a unique key and being constructed in such a fashion so that getting at the crypto information and functionality requires taking the camera apart in a tamper evident and non-reversible fashion.
Then proof would consist of the the signed photos and verification that the corresponding camera is still intact and functional.
Make fun all you like but this is already being done and works rather well.
Try your own computer (and that's using very basic fingerprinting).
That a tiny percentage of users may take measures against such fingerprinting is irrelevant. At worst they are an irrelevantly small number and the fact such machines would appear to be attempting to avoid fingerprinting might be enough of a risk identifier in itself (for ecommerce transactions for example).
If all the anonymous proxy does is hide your IP address then it probably won't help much. Device fingerprinting is done using much more information than that (obviously, given the article mentions mobile devices which are highly unlikely to have a static IP).
I believe that routers tend to fiddle with MAC addresses as the packets pass through them so they aren't something that is generally usable for that purpose over the internet.
then this start up has left their start a little late. There's already a few people doing similar things, for example: threatmetrix.com www.iovation.com
and must do their best to protect it from the taint of being associated with anything sexual or violent. So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii.
The machine-gun toting, lingerie wearing prostitute sidekick I had working alongside me in The Godfather: Black Hand Edition suggests otherwise. (Incidently I think that game is still has best usage of motion controls in a Wii game).
I don't think you can blame Nintendo really. I think the problem stems from a lot of third parties giving the Wii a wide berth early on in it's life. "Cool" devs (and perhaps gamers) saw it as underpowered and steered clear. By the time they started to pay attention to the amazing number of units being shipped the perception of the Wii already set and gamers who wanted access to more adult games had given up waiting and gone and bought and Xbox.
It's called Torrens title.
Of course, backups are still important, it's just the amount of data is smaller and the format likely to be friendlier than digitised versions of some ancient papyrus.
Slashdot Mirror
Were the people currently in Guantanamo US citizens or in US jurisdiction at the time of their "arrest"? "We don't like him" seems to be exactly the normal reason for being sent there.
Let's face it, when was the last time the USA didn't take an opportunity to look as hypocritical as possible on the world stage?
The article linked compares the HD Graphics 3000 in the i5-2500k and i7-2600k against the HD Graphics 2000 in the i3-2100. It seems to me that it's impossible to judge the two different GPUs from that comparison because the CPU differences will have a significant effect as well as the GPU differences.
It's be nice to see a graphics performance comparison of an i5-2500 vs an i5-2500k or i7-2600 vs i7-2600k so the non-GPU differences are minimal.
I am not asserting that it "must" be anything. I am saying that Google's own explanation that it is a simple oversight seems entirely plausible.
I am accusing them of nothing. I am looking at what they say happened and assessing it as sounding plausible.
If you were writing the code from scratch for a single purpose maybe. If you were leveraging existing code that may, incidentally to your requirements, do other things you may not worry about them too much as long as it achieves, at minimum, what you require.
The software used here was configurable as to whether it logs the data frame (defaulting to capture). If avoiding capturing the data frame wasn't specifically part of the spec for the deployment then:
a) The programmer may not have considered turning it off.
b) Any review may not have considered it an issue.
Uncaught bugs happen during software development and deployment all the time and the issue here wasn't one which affected the stated purpose of the program. As such it's hardly unimaginable that it was a simple oversight.
Ironic then that you are the one coming across as being so full of himself, claiming some insight into subtle intent that us poor idiots can't divine. You seem transfixed on "stupidity". I think it makes more sense to consider fallibility as an inherently human trait, present no matter how "high up" people may be in a "large organisation".
I humbly suggest that to assert the data must have been recorded intentionally requires an equally uncritical manner of thought.
A single command line option would have spared Google this embarrassment. It wasn't set and went undetected, probably because more attention was put into ensuring that is was capturing the needed information rather than checking it wasn't capturing data they weren't looking at anyway. The reality is that setting a single command line option would have avoided Google collecting the additional data, however not settin
It's not particularly hard to work out. They were interested in a couple of pieces of information from Wifi (basically SSID and MAC information) but it's not as if they can sniff for only those bits of info. Rather they are going to receive whole packets of information. Their mistake was in not immediately filtering out the parts they weren't interested in prior to writing it to disk. Google have provided fuller explanations of what happened.
Being called an idiot by someone who is obviously an idiot doesn't hurt that much.
There used to be one that also advised you which ingredients to buy next to most effectively increase the number of cocktails you could make in combination with your existing ingredients. I found that a very useful feature when I was building up my stockpile of goodies. I can't remember what it was called though.....
I think that may just suggest that you simply haven't paid attention to anything not related to the US.
Certainly they have released a lot more on the US recently, however that seems to be simply due to the unprecedented quantity of documents given to them in one leak than intent on their part.
Are we to assume you work in law enforcement? It's difficult to see how a normal person could interpret his statement as admitting any of those things.
Even individuals? I'd suggest that's where privacy rights start (and that they should diminish through private industry and government).
For me espionage has to involve one entity gaining an information advantage over another. If the documents were taken and secretly given to another government that would be espionage as the US would be at a disadvantage (it's information would be held by another party but it wouldn't know about it). Widely publishing the documents is different, the US isn't at an information disadvantage (it knows both the content of the leaks and the fact that they are out there).
It seems peculiar to me that if you are an actual spy operating in the US (eg Anna Chapman) you just get sent home while the US seems intent on actually extraditing to the US someone who doesn't obviously have any reason to be considered subject to US law.
Do you really think there was a "media industry" when the US constitution was adopted? There were certainly newspapers but you'd have to consider that freedom of the press would certainly have been intended to include those more likely to be called pamphleteers than newspapers and certainly a long way from a "media industry".
I think the other factor is likely to be "get onto the torrent early". If you are limited to a tiny up speed like that I don't expect many clients are going to bother you much if there are plenty of other available peers that'll serve faster.
If you are there near the start when the seed may be bottle necked your 64k will be valuable and will remain so until there's more seeds than demand.
You don't need a single "trusted entitity", a web of trust is based on your own prior experience and what others around you will vouch for.
If you have downloaded a torrent signed by someone before and been happy with it your software might be happy downloading more from them without warning. If you haven't seen anything from that person before your software might poll your peers to see if they will vouch for it and ultimately give you a choice one way or another.
Various key servers could be set up to serve trust information but would not present a critical point of failure or (for dodgy torrents) be at much legal risk because they wouldn't be serving anything remotely related to other peoples copyrighted information.
I don't think it's a waste of time in the sense that it's a step in a potentially useful direction.
If you want to add trust capabilities to the mix there are non-centralised ways to do it such as allowing digital signatures.
As far as I can tell it's about improper handling of e-waste, specifically e-waste was submitted to Slashdot and rather than handling it properly the Slashdot editors just passed the garbage on to it's readers unmodified.
All you need to do? That doesn't exactly sound easy, especially if EXIF type data is included in the signed data as you'd not only have to project the image correctly but have the camera using settings that are reasonable for the real image.
Any evidence is fakeable, you could assemble custom DNA strands if you wanted to and had sufficient resources.
I think there's a big difference between faking something in an entirely digital fashion and having to undergo difficult physical actions.
That doesn't seem particularly relevant, the main problem here is that everything required to do the signing can be extracted from of the camera.
It's a simple necessity that, regardless of precisely how the signature is generated, all the information required to generate signatures is inside the camera and someone with the desire and resources can pull it out.
I think the only protection would be each camera having a unique key and being constructed in such a fashion so that getting at the crypto information and functionality requires taking the camera apart in a tamper evident and non-reversible fashion.
Then proof would consist of the the signed photos and verification that the corresponding camera is still intact and functional.
Make fun all you like but this is already being done and works rather well.
Try your own computer (and that's using very basic fingerprinting).
That a tiny percentage of users may take measures against such fingerprinting is irrelevant. At worst they are an irrelevantly small number and the fact such machines would appear to be attempting to avoid fingerprinting might be enough of a risk identifier in itself (for ecommerce transactions for example).
If all the anonymous proxy does is hide your IP address then it probably won't help much. Device fingerprinting is done using much more information than that (obviously, given the article mentions mobile devices which are highly unlikely to have a static IP).
I believe that routers tend to fiddle with MAC addresses as the packets pass through them so they aren't something that is generally usable for that purpose over the internet.
then this start up has left their start a little late. There's already a few people doing similar things, for example:
threatmetrix.com
www.iovation.com
The machine-gun toting, lingerie wearing prostitute sidekick I had working alongside me in The Godfather: Black Hand Edition suggests otherwise. (Incidently I think that game is still has best usage of motion controls in a Wii game).
I don't think you can blame Nintendo really. I think the problem stems from a lot of third parties giving the Wii a wide berth early on in it's life. "Cool" devs (and perhaps gamers) saw it as underpowered and steered clear. By the time they started to pay attention to the amazing number of units being shipped the perception of the Wii already set and gamers who wanted access to more adult games had given up waiting and gone and bought and Xbox.
It's called Torrens title. Of course, backups are still important, it's just the amount of data is smaller and the format likely to be friendlier than digitised versions of some ancient papyrus.
Which couple of years? I bet typing 'ALSA' and those years in Google brings up a whole bunch of people struggling and esoteric how-tos.