I think there's been some misunderstanding. "They" in my statement is the person who finds in practice they actually cannot do better than the existing law enforcement system.
Changing a MAC may not be enough to gain access to a local network. wi-fi access can also require a local software token to register the host,
From the article: "Tufts said she stole a librarian’s password to assign a mysteriously created user account, “Scott Shaw,” with a higher level of system and network access."
Apparently librarian has the power to create network administration accounts so I suspect we're not dealing with a paragon of information security here. It would be mighty interesting to see all the MAC address logs from all the on-campus wi-fi routers and see if this MAC address was ever observed being in two places at once.
The times the fitness tracker recorded her being asleep are meaningless - anyone could've been wearing it. But the times she was being physically observed, and particularly the instance of physically observed + not on computer are intriguing. It would also be interesting to profile the interaction of the times she was being physically observed versus the interactions taking place in the "hacking". If you're being physically observed to create an alibi, then you're using a script to do your hacking in the background and that's generally going to look much less stochastic than live human interaction.
None of that evidence proves that she didn't get a friend to hack into the system, look at the answers, and change her grades for her.
This is unfalsifiable. Nothing could prove that short of omniscience.
Note that other students' grades were also changed; there was likely a "psst, pay me $500 and I'll give you better grades" type of scheme going on here.
That's only the most obvious possibility. Here's another one: The hacker is amongst that group. He/she possesses MAC address+name combinations for all of those people and adjusted all of their grades in order to create uncertainty about which of them was the hacker. Cloning MAC addresses was one of many tactics the hacker used, but the methods used by the school to track the hacker happened to seize upon that particular countermeasure.
But five weeks ago GM announced that it was finally ending small-car production and closing its Lordstown Assembly plant in Youngstown, Ohio.
So what went wrong?... Quartz argues that GM's decline "began with its quest to turn people into machines," as "the company turned assembly work into an interlocking chain of discrete tasks, to be executed by robots whenever possible."
So the author here seems to think that GM should be keeping its Ohio plant open, producing small cars and employing more people and less automation. This is self-contradictory.
Most people who choose to buy a small car (ignoring enthusiast/performance cars - which are unchanged) over an SUV do so because of price. So if you employ more people you make the small car more expensive and most everyone opts for the SUV. If you employ more automation and fewer people (and foreign people) you can produce the small car cheaper, but the article (and the American public) doesn't want that either.
I'm not sure I follow the flowery language (pun intended). A 7 figure insurance policy when you're working at an 8 to 9 figure scale is completely reasonable.
Speaking as someone who does a bit of trading, this actually makes complete sense and was a prudent strategy. There exist quite a few strategies in trading that require purchasing options you expect to expire worthless and I can explain what we're seeing here without even getting into anything exotic:
He stated explicitly that he sold bitcoin at the same point as purchasing these options. That he sold means he was expecting the price to drop. One move you can make to cash when you expect a price drop is to borrow shares, sell them, and then replace them after the price drops. This called selling short (I'm actually holding such a position in my portfolio right now). If you're wrong when you sell short, you cash out at a loss - and if bitcoin had kept skyrocketing that could have been a devastating loss - potentially unlimited, in fact. If you buy call options, however, your loss is capped because replacing the shares you sold cannot cost you more than the strike price.
No one, in any line of work, should be expected to sacrifice their family for their job.
"Crunch time" is an intentional policy decision in pursuit of maintaining a cheap labor force. It's obvious companies are getting more labor than they're paying for. What's more subtle is they're also selecting cheaper workers through the same policy. Creating job obligations that require sacrifice of family obligations selects for people with fewer family obligations and people willing to give away labor to maintain employment. People with no spouse, kids, family functions to attend, no savings to live on between jobs, etc. Young workers and foreign workers tend to fit that profile - generally recognized as the cheapest groups to hire. The policy attempts to ensure that they eventually self-select to free up the position for someone cheaper/younger. This raises fewer red flags than firing everyone who gets married.
And this is limited isn't limited to contracting situations (where you typically hear the word "client"). I have seen this in companies that sell products on the open market, to whole industries. The company takes the approach that development schedules are dictated by what features customers say they want. Since the customer doesn't know the security problem exists they can't say "I want this fixed". It is therefore not a priority.
Wouldn't UBI only be equivalent to communism in the case that the UBI level is set to something like GDP / population? Anything above that must necessarily be debt funded and unsustainable. Anything below that would allow anyone earning wealth in excess of their tax bill to keep it, which provides the motivation you suggest is necessary.
We also need to solve the impending problem of massive unemployment as we make it illegal to buy or sell human labor at rates that compete with automation. UBI ensures that wealth continues to flow within the economy as the value of human labor is competed out of the market. If we allow all the wealth to accumulate at the top and stagnate (which seems to be where our current configuration is leading), the economy breaks down. This is in no one's best interest.
I have been reading this site for close to 20 years now. Based on GP's very similar user ID I suspect he has too. I agree with the GP. I too have noticed a substantial shift towards conservatism in Slashdot's discussions in about the last 2 years. My experience in the software industry during the same time frame is consistent with the GP's observation of disproportion.
It would be interesting to study this and see if there's been a shift or an influx in the population.
But on the senior level companies complain they can't find good developers.
I'm a senior developer. Here's the problem as I see it in the senior recruitment arena: The majority of company HR departments and recruiters are bad at recruiting senior developers.
The modern tech landscape is filled with hundreds of different technologies technologies and tools. HTML, CSS, Javascript, hundreds of Node modules, PHP, Ruby on Rails, Linux, Windows, OSX, C++, Java, Python, Go, Rust, Perl, Git, Agile, Waterfall,.... the list is immense. No two companies use exactly the same tech stack but HR's job postings ("Required: <specific list of 18 technologies>") indicate they are filtering for someone from a company that does. It is reasonable for employers to expect that new technologies can be picked up on the fly but employers either don't seem to recognize this or are demanding someone who is going to be productive on hour 1 of their new position.
Another problem is that many recruiters and HR people think in terms of "years of experience" with each technology. This is a rather meaningless and often un-quantifiable metric for an engineering job. Example: I use Perl maybe once a month in the job I've held for the past 11 years, but only for a day and to write some "run once, throw away" type of script. I've known Perl for 20 years. How many years experience is that? There's no standard answer and no way to answer in "years of experience" that doesn't involve a lot of explanation and make the answer useless for comparison purposes - but someone who says they have 20 years Perl experience passes HR's resume filter while the more honest and nuanced answer does not.
Successful tech companies do not care about finding an exact match for their tech stack. They look for problem solving skills.
the game platform should have all the logs and records needed to make an easy case for prosecution
Some thoughts:
- This particular instance started in a game but as I understand it, the incriminating chatter happened over Twitter. There's no reason to assume games will be involved in every, or even any, future instance. What we're really talking about then is that all chat platforms analyzing and reporting to authorities about private conversations.
- There's no business case for creating this feature so it'd have to be required by law. It's doubtful such a law would survive First/Fourth Amendment challenges in the US.
- Only developed apps in the country with the law would be effected. Even many games are developed outside the US.
- Many game servers are run on private computers owned by private citizens, not by the game developers. Implementing the analysis and reporting you're suggesting MUST imply either:
- It can be interfered with and rendered useless by the owner of the reporting device
- All manner of frightening unintended consequences - for example, unblockable outbound internet traffic.
For example, here's an obvious straw man... I do not live in Alabama, but I know that people were saying the exact same things about Virginia, where I do live. This has not happened at all here.
Here's a straight up troll... Maybe instead of talking down about your favorite constituents, you all should actually try helping them?
*sigh* The quality of discourse on this site continues to concern me. I notice in this case of this thread a lot of unsubstantiated assertions appealing to the political right coming from ACs, in some cases modded up even though they add nothing to the discussion. This sort of thing should scare all rational people regardless of political leanings.
A short look at their front page shows no obvious political baiting that would lead one to believe this site just exists to push an agenda. (Try this test with Fox News' front page...)
I'm going to ignore the rest of your comment because I think we need to determine what the facts are before we can have any sort of sensible discussion on the results of those facts.
From article: "more than one of these guys in the video repeated some variation of “I don’t care what anyone thinks about me”. I.don’t believe you? If there’s one thing most humans care deeply about, it’s what other people think about them, particularly when you’re driving million-dollar, pulsing-neon supercars around the world’s most populous city."
I don't have the means to drive a anything close to a multi-million dollar car but I am a car enthusiast. So here's what I suspect the quoted person's response would be to reading this....
This says more about the writer than the person being quoted. The writer's perspective is very self-centered - "you did a thing to impress me, and I will not accept any other explanation". No - I did it because *I* find it beautiful and enjoy having this fusion of art and engineering around, and would enjoy it even if even if I was the only person on the planet.
That information (with the possible exception of SSN - I will be interested to see what you all can find) is easy to derive from my email address, which is at the top of my post. Have at it.
If the KKK said tomorrow "Sorry guys, we were just trolling" does that make everything they have said OK? Not in my book. If you're an ass like this guy, I feel I have a right to know who you are so I don't accidentally become your friend or offer you a job. Admitting he's a troll absolves him of nothing. He absolutely has the *right* to post every nasty hateful thing he can think of (short of promoting violence, etc.). But based on those actions I have the right to hold him in disgust, to not invite him into my workplace and my living room. CNN is doing me a disservice by withholding that information.
Anonymity is a necessary measure in certain cases - oppressive regimes, for example. This is not one of those cases - he's not under threat from the government, he's trying to avoid being held accountable. By abusing anonymity, he and other trolls strengthen the case against it, and have done immeasurable harm. We should be discouraging that.
I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea.
Putting words in his mouth about a Muslim registry takes attention away from legitimate criticism (practicality of a border wall, treatment of women, financial plans, etc.) and therefore works in his favor.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's been some misunderstanding. "They" in my statement is the person who finds in practice they actually cannot do better than the existing law enforcement system.
If you can do better, have you signed up for police work yet?
The current tense climate will only improve when people who can do better do, or come to understand why they and others can't.
Children went to school in pitch darkness and bitter cold, and people drove to work in the dark.
So change the times those things happen and leave the rest of us and our clocks alone.
Changing a MAC may not be enough to gain access to a local network. wi-fi access can also require a local software token to register the host,
From the article: "Tufts said she stole a librarian’s password to assign a mysteriously created user account, “Scott Shaw,” with a higher level of system and network access."
Apparently librarian has the power to create network administration accounts so I suspect we're not dealing with a paragon of information security here. It would be mighty interesting to see all the MAC address logs from all the on-campus wi-fi routers and see if this MAC address was ever observed being in two places at once.
The times the fitness tracker recorded her being asleep are meaningless - anyone could've been wearing it. But the times she was being physically observed, and particularly the instance of physically observed + not on computer are intriguing. It would also be interesting to profile the interaction of the times she was being physically observed versus the interactions taking place in the "hacking". If you're being physically observed to create an alibi, then you're using a script to do your hacking in the background and that's generally going to look much less stochastic than live human interaction.
None of that evidence proves that she didn't get a friend to hack into the system, look at the answers, and change her grades for her.
This is unfalsifiable. Nothing could prove that short of omniscience.
Note that other students' grades were also changed; there was likely a "psst, pay me $500 and I'll give you better grades" type of scheme going on here.
That's only the most obvious possibility. Here's another one: The hacker is amongst that group. He/she possesses MAC address+name combinations for all of those people and adjusted all of their grades in order to create uncertainty about which of them was the hacker. Cloning MAC addresses was one of many tactics the hacker used, but the methods used by the school to track the hacker happened to seize upon that particular countermeasure.
But five weeks ago GM announced that it was finally ending small-car production and closing its Lordstown Assembly plant in Youngstown, Ohio.
So what went wrong? ... Quartz argues that GM's decline "began with its quest to turn people into machines," as "the company turned assembly work into an interlocking chain of discrete tasks, to be executed by robots whenever possible."
So the author here seems to think that GM should be keeping its Ohio plant open, producing small cars and employing more people and less automation. This is self-contradictory.
Most people who choose to buy a small car (ignoring enthusiast/performance cars - which are unchanged) over an SUV do so because of price. So if you employ more people you make the small car more expensive and most everyone opts for the SUV. If you employ more automation and fewer people (and foreign people) you can produce the small car cheaper, but the article (and the American public) doesn't want that either.
I'm not sure I follow the flowery language (pun intended). A 7 figure insurance policy when you're working at an 8 to 9 figure scale is completely reasonable.
Speaking as someone who does a bit of trading, this actually makes complete sense and was a prudent strategy. There exist quite a few strategies in trading that require purchasing options you expect to expire worthless and I can explain what we're seeing here without even getting into anything exotic:
He stated explicitly that he sold bitcoin at the same point as purchasing these options. That he sold means he was expecting the price to drop. One move you can make to cash when you expect a price drop is to borrow shares, sell them, and then replace them after the price drops. This called selling short (I'm actually holding such a position in my portfolio right now). If you're wrong when you sell short, you cash out at a loss - and if bitcoin had kept skyrocketing that could have been a devastating loss - potentially unlimited, in fact. If you buy call options, however, your loss is capped because replacing the shares you sold cannot cost you more than the strike price.
No one, in any line of work, should be expected to sacrifice their family for their job.
"Crunch time" is an intentional policy decision in pursuit of maintaining a cheap labor force. It's obvious companies are getting more labor than they're paying for. What's more subtle is they're also selecting cheaper workers through the same policy. Creating job obligations that require sacrifice of family obligations selects for people with fewer family obligations and people willing to give away labor to maintain employment. People with no spouse, kids, family functions to attend, no savings to live on between jobs, etc. Young workers and foreign workers tend to fit that profile - generally recognized as the cheapest groups to hire. The policy attempts to ensure that they eventually self-select to free up the position for someone cheaper/younger. This raises fewer red flags than firing everyone who gets married.
This.
And this is limited isn't limited to contracting situations (where you typically hear the word "client"). I have seen this in companies that sell products on the open market, to whole industries. The company takes the approach that development schedules are dictated by what features customers say they want. Since the customer doesn't know the security problem exists they can't say "I want this fixed". It is therefore not a priority.
Communism by any other name is still communism
Wouldn't UBI only be equivalent to communism in the case that the UBI level is set to something like GDP / population? Anything above that must necessarily be debt funded and unsustainable. Anything below that would allow anyone earning wealth in excess of their tax bill to keep it, which provides the motivation you suggest is necessary.
We also need to solve the impending problem of massive unemployment as we make it illegal to buy or sell human labor at rates that compete with automation. UBI ensures that wealth continues to flow within the economy as the value of human labor is competed out of the market. If we allow all the wealth to accumulate at the top and stagnate (which seems to be where our current configuration is leading), the economy breaks down. This is in no one's best interest.
I have been reading this site for close to 20 years now. Based on GP's very similar user ID I suspect he has too. I agree with the GP. I too have noticed a substantial shift towards conservatism in Slashdot's discussions in about the last 2 years. My experience in the software industry during the same time frame is consistent with the GP's observation of disproportion.
It would be interesting to study this and see if there's been a shift or an influx in the population.
But on the senior level companies complain they can't find good developers.
I'm a senior developer. Here's the problem as I see it in the senior recruitment arena: The majority of company HR departments and recruiters are bad at recruiting senior developers.
The modern tech landscape is filled with hundreds of different technologies technologies and tools. HTML, CSS, Javascript, hundreds of Node modules, PHP, Ruby on Rails, Linux, Windows, OSX, C++, Java, Python, Go, Rust, Perl, Git, Agile, Waterfall,.... the list is immense. No two companies use exactly the same tech stack but HR's job postings ("Required: <specific list of 18 technologies>") indicate they are filtering for someone from a company that does. It is reasonable for employers to expect that new technologies can be picked up on the fly but employers either don't seem to recognize this or are demanding someone who is going to be productive on hour 1 of their new position.
Another problem is that many recruiters and HR people think in terms of "years of experience" with each technology. This is a rather meaningless and often un-quantifiable metric for an engineering job. Example: I use Perl maybe once a month in the job I've held for the past 11 years, but only for a day and to write some "run once, throw away" type of script. I've known Perl for 20 years. How many years experience is that? There's no standard answer and no way to answer in "years of experience" that doesn't involve a lot of explanation and make the answer useless for comparison purposes - but someone who says they have 20 years Perl experience passes HR's resume filter while the more honest and nuanced answer does not.
Successful tech companies do not care about finding an exact match for their tech stack. They look for problem solving skills.
the game platform should have all the logs and records needed to make an easy case for prosecution
Some thoughts:
Not all of it. :)
For example, here's an obvious straw man... I do not live in Alabama, but I know that people were saying the exact same things about Virginia, where I do live. This has not happened at all here.
Here's a straight up troll... Maybe instead of talking down about your favorite constituents, you all should actually try helping them?
*sigh* The quality of discourse on this site continues to concern me. I notice in this case of this thread a lot of unsubstantiated assertions appealing to the political right coming from ACs, in some cases modded up even though they add nothing to the discussion. This sort of thing should scare all rational people regardless of political leanings.
Snopes lost all credibility years ago...
No problem. They're just providing an information hub. Since they cited sources we can assume Snopes isn't credible and go a level deeper.
Yes. Why should this be a problem?
If the credibility of the sites Snopes links to is highly questionable then that's something that can be demonstrated. I propose we start with the local news station, WHNT. http://whnt.com/2015/09/30/alea-announces-driver-license-office-closures-includes-two-in-north-alabama/
According to wikipedia there is an WHNT TV station in the area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHNT-TV.
A short look at their front page shows no obvious political baiting that would lead one to believe this site just exists to push an agenda. (Try this test with Fox News' front page...)
I'm going to ignore the rest of your comment because I think we need to determine what the facts are before we can have any sort of sensible discussion on the results of those facts.
Here's a snopes link on the subject. It links to local news articles related to the subject.
https://www.snopes.com/2015/10/01/alabama-drivers-license/
Assuming you still maintain the position that this did not occur, can provide links to back up that position?
From article: "more than one of these guys in the video repeated some variation of “I don’t care what anyone thinks about me”. I.don’t believe you? If there’s one thing most humans care deeply about, it’s what other people think about them, particularly when you’re driving million-dollar, pulsing-neon supercars around the world’s most populous city."
I don't have the means to drive a anything close to a multi-million dollar car but I am a car enthusiast. So here's what I suspect the quoted person's response would be to reading this....
This says more about the writer than the person being quoted. The writer's perspective is very self-centered - "you did a thing to impress me, and I will not accept any other explanation". No - I did it because *I* find it beautiful and enjoy having this fusion of art and engineering around, and would enjoy it even if even if I was the only person on the planet.
That information (with the possible exception of SSN - I will be interested to see what you all can find) is easy to derive from my email address, which is at the top of my post. Have at it.
If the KKK said tomorrow "Sorry guys, we were just trolling" does that make everything they have said OK? Not in my book. If you're an ass like this guy, I feel I have a right to know who you are so I don't accidentally become your friend or offer you a job. Admitting he's a troll absolves him of nothing. He absolutely has the *right* to post every nasty hateful thing he can think of (short of promoting violence, etc.). But based on those actions I have the right to hold him in disgust, to not invite him into my workplace and my living room. CNN is doing me a disservice by withholding that information.
Anonymity is a necessary measure in certain cases - oppressive regimes, for example. This is not one of those cases - he's not under threat from the government, he's trying to avoid being held accountable. By abusing anonymity, he and other trolls strengthen the case against it, and have done immeasurable harm. We should be discouraging that.
It's quite mind-boggling why a third party won't pop up and have 90% votes immediately (ie, anyone with a shred of brain left).
The US electoral system mathematically dictates that the US have a two-party system. This explains why much better than I could.
We desperately need to overall this system.
VPN protects against MitM. Are we assuming everyone was using that for some reason?
Why would a "rogue" access point that actually delivers your packets be bad?
Because unfortunately not everything is hardened against MitM attacks yet. Everything should be, but not everything is.
I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea.
Putting words in his mouth about a Muslim registry takes attention away from legitimate criticism (practicality of a border wall, treatment of women, financial plans, etc.) and therefore works in his favor.
Preface: I voted against Trump.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).