It looks to me like they're looking at other results to compare the output of their programmes for correctness and trying their best to discard junk data (i.e. fields with no sane values, etc).
Basically, from scanning it I got:
1. Run programme 2. Encounter error 3. Resolve error in programme / dataset / system 4. Repeat
So basically the classic shotgun debugging pattern of amateur developers.
A lot of it is discussion about how to process secondary data files, so presumably some datasets that were generated from original sources and would be a giant pain to recompile. Other stuff is talking about how hard it is to merge certain datasets. Mainly it seems to be about trying to keep datasets in sync across various runs of programmes.
When they're talking about their programmes producing crazy outputs, it seems fairly clear they're saying that they're getting garbage and not simply results they don't like.
These guys could clearly do with a professional developer and a better workflow, but that doesn't invalidate the basic science they're doing.
All I see there is a giant train of thought log from a scientist trying to get a dataset and a program to play nice.
This happens in science. I have a friend who's just completed a Phd in Psychology. She found it necessary to learn how to code in Perl in order to get the datasets she was working with in a useful form. Now, bear in mind this is someone who, whilst very clever, has no prior experience writing code beyond the odd Excel macro. Can you imagine how much of a hack those Perl scripts must be?
Unfortunately, most scientists aren't software engineers. This actually presents a more profound problem in general for any science that relies in large datasets because it introduces a source of random error.
Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.
Actually, the Software Freedom Law Centre rarely takes formal legal action against anyone for GPL violations. They much prefer to bring violators into compliance with the minimum of fuss so that accidental violators can save face.
The SFLC understands that you shouldn't assume malice when incompetence is equally likely. Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice though.
I meant to say that it only helps if your storage media is somehow stolen from your phone. If you have physical access to the entire phone and have root, there's no point in encrypting the passwords.
That's the scenario with Android password security: you need physical access and root.
I don't think you understand. iOS has a keychain (just like OS X, upon which it's based). The keychain is an encrypted file that contains things likes passwords.
But that only keeps you safe if your storage media is somehow stolen. Given that the media is soldered into the phone, that's an unlikely scenario.
The only way to access the password database on Androind (and I presume iOS) is to be root. If you're root, you've got access to the procedure for decrypting passwords.
Therefore, what's the point of obscuring the passwords?
So don't have USB debug turned on in your phone options.
If someone can take your SD card out, your physical security has failed. Give me enough time alone with just about any computer short of some serious enterprise system and I can break the security. That's why physical security is paramount.
If iOS doesn't store passwords as plaintext, it's really dumb.
In order for your phone to authenticate with an online service, it has to send the password. In order to be able to do that, it has to retrieve the plaintext.
You could hash the plaintext to obscure it in some manner, but whatever process you use has to be easily reversable in order to get the plaintext back so you can send it off to the server (hopefully over a secure connection!).
You can only access the plaintext from that database if you've rooted your phone. Even then, you have to be using an application that you've allowed to run as root.
Given all of the above, there's no point in obscuring passwords. If the password database is compromised, the phone is compromised and whatever mechanism there is for retrieving the passwords is also compromised.
Uh, no. Kotick became CEO in 91. During his watch we've had Quake, Interstate '76, Mechwarrior 2 and the Jedi Knight games.
Lately Activision has taken a turn for the worst what with their focus on milking sequels, but it wasn't always that way. He didn't invent the idea of milking sequels, he stole it from Hollywood. Hollywood have been doing that for years and making money hats; the Transformers films have made billions of dollars.
So yea, that formula does work for mass market consumer art.
I do my part by just not buying CoD and, if people happen to ask me about it, saying I think it's shit. Other than that I tend to ignore it.
I doubt Google has any choice in the matter. Your intelligence agencies can install fibre splitters wherever they please and intercept any traffic they like, as such the NSA will have complete access to Googles networks. If they're going further than that and Google is providing services to the NSA on a commercial basis then it's likely they were made an offer they couldn't refuse.
Here in the UK network admins have to comply with all requests by the intelligence services. It's a criminal offence to tell anyone - including a solicitor - that you're assisting an intercept. Given how information is copied all around the world in Google's cloud and how many countries have similar laws, it's safe to say our information is accessible to many agencies.
The GP was using simile by comparing flight attendants to air marshals. The point is that the FAA requires a certain number of cabin crew depending on the size of the plane and so that's the number of cabin crew airlines employ. There's no requirements for the cabin crew to actually do anything other than the safety briefings or handle emergency situations.
The point is that "rather than have them sit around looking like air marshals" the airlines have them do other things.
Wait a second, you're seriously arguing that it would have been better for the Kenyan people to not know about the corruption? That the fixing of an election and the ensuing violence was Wikileaks fault?
Wikileaks didn't kill those people, cabinet ministers in the Kenyan government planned and promoted the violence in order to crush the opposition! Sure, if the opposition hadn't found out about the corruption there would have been no reason to kill them. If you want to follow that logic though, we should just burn all newspapers and do whatever the people in power tell us to do.
This is so ridiculous. The NotW does have a proud history of investigative journalism, the most famous example being Jeffrey Archer. The editor at the time ended up resigning over that though as Murdoch didn't want his papers going after Torys. In any case, that was a clear case of public interest.
The same argument can be made about Wikileaks. Leaking things that could embarrass the government in order to expose hypocrisy or lies is fine. Digging up dirt on someone just because they happen to be on TV and having an affair, hacking into dead girls voicemails or doing the same for stories about how a politicians baby girl is dying are not the same thing.
Nobody is arguing against journalists using subterfuge in public interest cases.The NotW famously caught Jeffrey Archer admitting to perjury which led to his conviction.
That doesn't mean it's OK to hack into the voicemail of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then run a story about his baby daughter dying of Cystic Fibrosis just because that's what you happen to find.
All tabloid newspapers in the UK are implicated in this hacking scandal; it's only a matter of time before dirt is found on the other tabloids.
No broadcasters are likely to be implicated though, as the broadcaster regulator OFCOM has statutory powers investigate and make broadcasters issue corrections. If any TV news journalist had tried to use evidence gained through hacking or bribery it would quickly have become apparent in any ensuing investigation.
The print press, however, just had the non-statutory Press Complaints Commission. This was run by newspaper editors and when they received a complaint, they'd deal with it by asking the paper in question if they really did it or if the story was really true. Obviously they rarely found against newspapers.
I think it's fairly clear that the reason why every non-Murdoch media outlet in the UK is blowing this up is because they smell blood. If Rebehak Brooks and James Murdoch are already linked to the hacking, Rupert can't be far behind.
Given that MPs have started talking about being intimidated and essentially blackmailed by News International, it does seem that everyone really wants to, at the very least, run the Murdochs out of the country for good.
Not that this is necessarily a major blow for propriety or anything. Most of the establishment gunning for Murdoch are really just using this as an opportunity to win a feud that goes back almost 30 years. At the same time lots of non-Murdoch papers have been implicated in the same behaviour, most notably papers from Trinity Mirror and Associated.
I wonder if they'll receive the same level of investigation?
The BBCs idea of balance is to air lots of extreme views. They also rarely directly attack the government of the day.
A lot of leftys can also point to instances of the BBC being fairly centre-right or in some cases, e.g. Newsnight constantly giving a platform to Migration Watch, quite far right.
It was reported on Channel 4 News last night that a senior News International figure had tried to get their data centre in India to delete documents. The call was logged as suspicious and the request was denied, but it does seem like NI are trying to cover their tracks.
Actually, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allows for neglect on the part of directors of a body corporate to be just as guilty as connivance or consent. The fact is that the directors of News International should, from the information released, have known about what was going on when it was happening and if they didn't, were neglectful and still guilty. The RIP act is clearly designed to catch and prosecute all unauthorised wiretaps of this form.
Closing the NOTW also means they have a superficially legitimate reason to start destroying documents. The police really need to get in there now and start seizing paperwork.
It makes you wonder why the police have essentially given Coulson 24hrs notice that they're going to arrest him. It makes one wonder if they're giving him a fighting chance to get rid of much stuff as possible in exchange for not revealing the names of officers he could count on to bribe.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but given the extent of the corruption revealed so far, it's difficult to imagine where it ends.
He almost certainly broke the law. The regulation of investigatory powers act makes it an offence for a corporate body to engage in this kind of behaviour and holds directors personally responsible for connivance and neglect.
If James Murdoch let things happen on a nod and a wink he's guilty of connivance. Even if he didn't have that level of knowledge, failing to do a full internal investigation based on the allegations from five years ago is a clear sign of neglect.
Rebekah Brooks, née Wade, who was in charge at the time is already chief exec of News International. The current rumour mill is that the NOTW staff are being sacrificed in order to keep her safe. As to why Murdoch would go to such lengths to protect her, the thinking is that if she went then James Murdoch would also have to go. James Murdoch has admitted to paying settlements to silence people involved in the hacking affair; he claims that the information given to him at the time was incomplete and he didn't know the full extent.
Just so everyone is clear what's going on here, Members of Parliament have started talking openly about how they've been threatened by News International. A murder investigation into a private detective where the prime suspects were two other PIs with close ties to News International was interfered with by the NOTW. The former deputy features editor of the NOTW has openly admitted to bribing police to the tune of £5-10,000 for stories - something he doesn't believe should be illegal. Rebekah Brooks accidentally admitted to Parliament a few years ago that they regularly paid the police for stories, although in a clarification 6 months later that claim was retracted.
There's always been rumours around how Murdoch runs his empire, but now it's being blown wide open. News International runs more like a criminal conspiracy than a legitimate media organisation; they're basically gangsters.
Yea, making patent holders liable for all re-examination costs - including third party costs brought to the attention of the patent office and used as evidence to invalidate a patent - would be a good deterrent from filing obvious patents and then trolling for license fees.
My understanding is that patent examiners simply go off the information that's filed alongside the patent. If a patent isn't really novel, they wait until a re-examination request comes in - usually as a result of litigation around the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks to me like they're looking at other results to compare the output of their programmes for correctness and trying their best to discard junk data (i.e. fields with no sane values, etc).
Basically, from scanning it I got:
1. Run programme
2. Encounter error
3. Resolve error in programme / dataset / system
4. Repeat
So basically the classic shotgun debugging pattern of amateur developers.
A lot of it is discussion about how to process secondary data files, so presumably some datasets that were generated from original sources and would be a giant pain to recompile. Other stuff is talking about how hard it is to merge certain datasets. Mainly it seems to be about trying to keep datasets in sync across various runs of programmes.
When they're talking about their programmes producing crazy outputs, it seems fairly clear they're saying that they're getting garbage and not simply results they don't like.
These guys could clearly do with a professional developer and a better workflow, but that doesn't invalidate the basic science they're doing.
All I see there is a giant train of thought log from a scientist trying to get a dataset and a program to play nice.
This happens in science. I have a friend who's just completed a Phd in Psychology. She found it necessary to learn how to code in Perl in order to get the datasets she was working with in a useful form. Now, bear in mind this is someone who, whilst very clever, has no prior experience writing code beyond the odd Excel macro. Can you imagine how much of a hack those Perl scripts must be?
Unfortunately, most scientists aren't software engineers. This actually presents a more profound problem in general for any science that relies in large datasets because it introduces a source of random error.
Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.
Actually, the Software Freedom Law Centre rarely takes formal legal action against anyone for GPL violations. They much prefer to bring violators into compliance with the minimum of fuss so that accidental violators can save face.
The SFLC understands that you shouldn't assume malice when incompetence is equally likely. Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice though.
Sorry, I realise I was being unclear.
I meant to say that it only helps if your storage media is somehow stolen from your phone. If you have physical access to the entire phone and have root, there's no point in encrypting the passwords.
That's the scenario with Android password security: you need physical access and root.
Ah, I see.
I totally agree then.
I don't think you understand. iOS has a keychain (just like OS X, upon which it's based). The keychain is an encrypted file that contains things likes passwords.
But that only keeps you safe if your storage media is somehow stolen. Given that the media is soldered into the phone, that's an unlikely scenario.
The only way to access the password database on Androind (and I presume iOS) is to be root. If you're root, you've got access to the procedure for decrypting passwords.
Therefore, what's the point of obscuring the passwords?
So don't have USB debug turned on in your phone options.
If someone can take your SD card out, your physical security has failed. Give me enough time alone with just about any computer short of some serious enterprise system and I can break the security. That's why physical security is paramount.
If iOS doesn't store passwords as plaintext, it's really dumb.
In order for your phone to authenticate with an online service, it has to send the password. In order to be able to do that, it has to retrieve the plaintext.
You could hash the plaintext to obscure it in some manner, but whatever process you use has to be easily reversable in order to get the plaintext back so you can send it off to the server (hopefully over a secure connection!).
You can only access the plaintext from that database if you've rooted your phone. Even then, you have to be using an application that you've allowed to run as root.
Given all of the above, there's no point in obscuring passwords. If the password database is compromised, the phone is compromised and whatever mechanism there is for retrieving the passwords is also compromised.
The iPhone is just as insecure: http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-password-broken-in-6-minutes-10132627/
Note that process also requires the iPhone to be rooted.
Uh, no. Kotick became CEO in 91. During his watch we've had Quake, Interstate '76, Mechwarrior 2 and the Jedi Knight games.
Lately Activision has taken a turn for the worst what with their focus on milking sequels, but it wasn't always that way. He didn't invent the idea of milking sequels, he stole it from Hollywood. Hollywood have been doing that for years and making money hats; the Transformers films have made billions of dollars.
So yea, that formula does work for mass market consumer art.
I do my part by just not buying CoD and, if people happen to ask me about it, saying I think it's shit. Other than that I tend to ignore it.
I doubt Google has any choice in the matter. Your intelligence agencies can install fibre splitters wherever they please and intercept any traffic they like, as such the NSA will have complete access to Googles networks. If they're going further than that and Google is providing services to the NSA on a commercial basis then it's likely they were made an offer they couldn't refuse.
Here in the UK network admins have to comply with all requests by the intelligence services. It's a criminal offence to tell anyone - including a solicitor - that you're assisting an intercept. Given how information is copied all around the world in Google's cloud and how many countries have similar laws, it's safe to say our information is accessible to many agencies.
As hilarious / creepy as that comment from Zuckerberg is, it's so easy for comments like that to be taken out of context.
I mean, if someone were to take all the cuff comments I make in private and on instant messaging out of context, they'd think I was worse than Stalin.
The GP was using simile by comparing flight attendants to air marshals. The point is that the FAA requires a certain number of cabin crew depending on the size of the plane and so that's the number of cabin crew airlines employ. There's no requirements for the cabin crew to actually do anything other than the safety briefings or handle emergency situations.
The point is that "rather than have them sit around looking like air marshals" the airlines have them do other things.
Wait a second, you're seriously arguing that it would have been better for the Kenyan people to not know about the corruption? That the fixing of an election and the ensuing violence was Wikileaks fault?
Wikileaks didn't kill those people, cabinet ministers in the Kenyan government planned and promoted the violence in order to crush the opposition! Sure, if the opposition hadn't found out about the corruption there would have been no reason to kill them. If you want to follow that logic though, we should just burn all newspapers and do whatever the people in power tell us to do.
This is so ridiculous. The NotW does have a proud history of investigative journalism, the most famous example being Jeffrey Archer. The editor at the time ended up resigning over that though as Murdoch didn't want his papers going after Torys. In any case, that was a clear case of public interest.
The same argument can be made about Wikileaks. Leaking things that could embarrass the government in order to expose hypocrisy or lies is fine. Digging up dirt on someone just because they happen to be on TV and having an affair, hacking into dead girls voicemails or doing the same for stories about how a politicians baby girl is dying are not the same thing.
Nobody is arguing against journalists using subterfuge in public interest cases.The NotW famously caught Jeffrey Archer admitting to perjury which led to his conviction.
That doesn't mean it's OK to hack into the voicemail of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then run a story about his baby daughter dying of Cystic Fibrosis just because that's what you happen to find.
All tabloid newspapers in the UK are implicated in this hacking scandal; it's only a matter of time before dirt is found on the other tabloids.
No broadcasters are likely to be implicated though, as the broadcaster regulator OFCOM has statutory powers investigate and make broadcasters issue corrections. If any TV news journalist had tried to use evidence gained through hacking or bribery it would quickly have become apparent in any ensuing investigation.
The print press, however, just had the non-statutory Press Complaints Commission. This was run by newspaper editors and when they received a complaint, they'd deal with it by asking the paper in question if they really did it or if the story was really true. Obviously they rarely found against newspapers.
I think it's fairly clear that the reason why every non-Murdoch media outlet in the UK is blowing this up is because they smell blood. If Rebehak Brooks and James Murdoch are already linked to the hacking, Rupert can't be far behind.
Given that MPs have started talking about being intimidated and essentially blackmailed by News International, it does seem that everyone really wants to, at the very least, run the Murdochs out of the country for good.
Not that this is necessarily a major blow for propriety or anything. Most of the establishment gunning for Murdoch are really just using this as an opportunity to win a feud that goes back almost 30 years. At the same time lots of non-Murdoch papers have been implicated in the same behaviour, most notably papers from Trinity Mirror and Associated.
I wonder if they'll receive the same level of investigation?
The BBCs idea of balance is to air lots of extreme views. They also rarely directly attack the government of the day.
A lot of leftys can also point to instances of the BBC being fairly centre-right or in some cases, e.g. Newsnight constantly giving a platform to Migration Watch, quite far right.
It was reported on Channel 4 News last night that a senior News International figure had tried to get their data centre in India to delete documents. The call was logged as suspicious and the request was denied, but it does seem like NI are trying to cover their tracks.
Actually, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allows for neglect on the part of directors of a body corporate to be just as guilty as connivance or consent. The fact is that the directors of News International should, from the information released, have known about what was going on when it was happening and if they didn't, were neglectful and still guilty. The RIP act is clearly designed to catch and prosecute all unauthorised wiretaps of this form.
Here's an excellent analysis: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/andreas-whittam-smith-if-we-dont-act-now-worse-will-follow-2307923.html
Closing the NOTW also means they have a superficially legitimate reason to start destroying documents. The police really need to get in there now and start seizing paperwork.
It makes you wonder why the police have essentially given Coulson 24hrs notice that they're going to arrest him. It makes one wonder if they're giving him a fighting chance to get rid of much stuff as possible in exchange for not revealing the names of officers he could count on to bribe.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but given the extent of the corruption revealed so far, it's difficult to imagine where it ends.
He almost certainly broke the law. The regulation of investigatory powers act makes it an offence for a corporate body to engage in this kind of behaviour and holds directors personally responsible for connivance and neglect.
If James Murdoch let things happen on a nod and a wink he's guilty of connivance. Even if he didn't have that level of knowledge, failing to do a full internal investigation based on the allegations from five years ago is a clear sign of neglect.
Rebekah Brooks, née Wade, who was in charge at the time is already chief exec of News International. The current rumour mill is that the NOTW staff are being sacrificed in order to keep her safe. As to why Murdoch would go to such lengths to protect her, the thinking is that if she went then James Murdoch would also have to go. James Murdoch has admitted to paying settlements to silence people involved in the hacking affair; he claims that the information given to him at the time was incomplete and he didn't know the full extent.
Just so everyone is clear what's going on here, Members of Parliament have started talking openly about how they've been threatened by News International. A murder investigation into a private detective where the prime suspects were two other PIs with close ties to News International was interfered with by the NOTW. The former deputy features editor of the NOTW has openly admitted to bribing police to the tune of £5-10,000 for stories - something he doesn't believe should be illegal. Rebekah Brooks accidentally admitted to Parliament a few years ago that they regularly paid the police for stories, although in a clarification 6 months later that claim was retracted.
There's always been rumours around how Murdoch runs his empire, but now it's being blown wide open. News International runs more like a criminal conspiracy than a legitimate media organisation; they're basically gangsters.
Yea, making patent holders liable for all re-examination costs - including third party costs brought to the attention of the patent office and used as evidence to invalidate a patent - would be a good deterrent from filing obvious patents and then trolling for license fees.
My understanding is that patent examiners simply go off the information that's filed alongside the patent. If a patent isn't really novel, they wait until a re-examination request comes in - usually as a result of litigation around the patent.