The jocks [or anyone who chases dominance] are deeply insecure, and need external support for their fragile egos. Why else be so sensitive to perceived slights? The truly strong merely shrug them off. Strength means confidence, and confidence does not require continual demonstration.
Here I am talking only about constructive society. There are also predatory societies where it is necessary to grab eveything you can. Doomed to implosion. Or in dealing with the stupid, who sometimes need to see teeth.
Since these guys should know themselves best, I take them at their word.
For a general (not compute) server, I'd recommend just using an inexpensive nettop like the Asus EEE. I measure (Kill-o-watt meter) mine at 14W. If you need more than SD cards for storage, get a USB external HD. Or you could try some hacked NAS.
The nice thing about the nettop is you can take it with you if you want, or use it as a full machine my plugging in LCD monitor, kbd, and mouse.
HDs are easily removed from laptops because they frequently fail. Often soft [chkdsk recovery], sometimes hard [replace].
Deliberate combustion is beneath silly: people have laptops to travel. Frequently by aircraft where such devices are prohibited for excellent reason.
Both of these "one-way" solutions neglect a very important loss mechanism -- irrecoverable loss of data. I would guess 10-100x more data is lost than stolen. While theft can very rarely have spectacular "James Bond" consequences, loss of data represents 100s or 1000s of manhours. Risk is not only consequence, but also probability. Do njot ignore frequent smaller consequences.
It is very hard to prevent compromises when the attacker has physical access to the machine.
One thing that might slow/stop the evil maid is a BIOS boot passwd or BIOS disk passwd. This denies the maid a boot or any disk access (respectively). Of course, she could always pop the disk out and write it on her own machine. Unless key [boot] parts were BIOS encrypted.
As usual, security always has some cost for the user and has to be balanced against benefits [reduced risk of loss].
Sure, sure, everyone thinks AT&T is _evil_. Fine. More anger because it cannot be proven. But do they not have rights to loyal employees? Or do two wrongs make a right?
People who work at AT&T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore. If they are "just there for the money", then they've sold out and they cannot claim their free opinion is worth much. Of course, those whine the loudest.
Beyond throwing the baby out with the bathwater, this is deeply ironic -- the head of the FBI, arguably the US top policeman, giving into fear of criminals rather than fighting them.
Viewed on a negative basis, police deter lawbreaking by catching offenders so they can be punished downstream in the judicial system. From a positive basis, police create a climate where the people do not need to fear crime and so can be less stressful and more productive. Rather important.
The one thing police should never do is show fear or give into crime. It is a fundamental abdication of responsibility and encourages the lawless. (some inner city areas). If they do, then what is their justification for SWAT -- heavy armament and aggressive tactics? They should just turn tail and run.
Then why do the errors stay at the same memory locations when I swap modules? This puzzled me and caused me to attribute it to mobo busses.
I agree the modules are partial nightmares. But the data sides have relatively few branches, usually one chip delivers 8 bits, and branches only for other modules or stubs. The address side has horrible fan-out, but fortunately lots of cycles to settle.
Hard DRAM errors are rather hard to explain if the cells are good -- maybe a bad write. After much DRAM testing (I use
memtest86+ weeklong), I've yet to find bad cells.
What I have seen (and generated) is the occasional (2-3/day) bus error with specific (nasty) datapatterns. Usually at a
few addr. I write that off to mobo trace design and crosstalk between the signals. Failing to round the corners
sufficiently, or leaving spurs is the likely problem. I think Hypertransport is a balanced design (push-pull
differential like ethernet) and should be less succeptible.
Why should the police be worried about getting a warrent? It is not as if officers are walking around with GPS devices to plant on suspects they suddenly see. No, these are planned operations with justification. Then why not get a warrent?
Police should not be wasting public resources nor possessing and exercising excessive discretion in "following hunches". Get the warrent. Its' easy.
Seriously, I doubt it. English is far too irregular. A pogrom (sic) can only look for regularities, so will reward a particularly stilted style of english. Like "five paragraph themes". Maybe that will satisfy some in the ESL community, but it should not.
A simple test of any pgm is to see how it rates diverse examples of acknowledged great writing: Dickens, Steinbeck, Hardy and many others. You could even leave off poetry and mid.engl like Shakespeare. My guess is it will be pretty good at spotting gramatical errors, and horrible at spotting the far more troublesome logic, sequence and continuinty errors.
OTOH, my wife is an english prof and she spends an unreasonable time at home reading and grading students' papers. I'd love to have her back:) It is _much_ harder work reading papers than dropping scoring sheets into a scantron. She spends more time reading than her most lengthy student spends writing.
Most likely it is his own actions and inactions in disciplining his subordinates that is eroding public confidence. Stifling criticism is the last refuge of incompetents.
Possibly the chief is doing this "to protect his men" and improve dept "morale" and "efficiency". However, that is corrupt -- he is sworn to protect the public, not his men. And the Texas and US Constitutions, not "efficiency". The simple fact is the Constitutions are designed to limit police efficiency to reduce inhibition and promote happiness.
Given the rather extraordinary police powers and discretion, perhaps the public should have absolute privilige with respect to criticism. Zero liability for libel and slander. Or at least and entraordinarily high standard of proof even to start a case. Someone needs to watch the watchers.
Decrease efficiency -- YES, especially for malfeasance.
Officials hold offices and are doing public things. They have no right of privacy WRT offical acts. And ought not be doing non-offical acts on the public dime.
Since very little is monitored LIVE because it is extremely expensive, retention time of email, logs, etc. is crucial. Too long and you encourage witchhunts from the past, too short and you abet felonies.
The real problem is is that law makers (and enforcement) often think themselves above the law. They made/enforced it, so can change/ignore it. Worse, the punishments for such violations is almost always minor. "Whaddyou gonna doo 'bout it?"
A simple answer is to charge felony "obstruction of justice", and have the felony provisions remove from office. This is highly unlikely to happen for reasons of "good buddy" through to not causing excessive fear in the bureaucracy.
Finders are not keepers. The device remains his property, and Amazon ought to help him recover it. In fact, if they are found to have dealt with the device (accepted a CC & downloaded a file), they could be charged with abetting the theft.
The correct thing for a finder to do is to turn it in to the airline or airport lost-n-found (however inefficient they might appear). If it is not duly claimed within a specified period, then they can claim the device. To protect themselves, Amazon ought to require such proof, especially if a device has been reported lost or stolen.
Otherwise, I fail to see any privacy issue. A thief is not entitled to any I can see: the owner remains owner of the device, and can legitimately authorize the execution of any program, even remotely. Even a microphone program unless the microphone where surrupticious and otherwise unexpected (bug on the device).
Well, what did you expect? Blocking software is basically an outgrowth of monitoring / usage software primarily developed for targetted marketing. So of course it monitors, the better build its' database.
Of course the kids have privacy rights, but as minors cannot exercise these which the parents/guardians have a fiduciary duty to exercise. The parents doubtless click agreement when the software is installed.
The real problem is that parents are scared into agreement by media overhyping low probability events and omitting crucial explanations / causes. So the parents hear: "Your kids could be another Columbine or victim" to sell whatever schlock they're peddling. Non-sequitur but the data is obscured.
A bigger question is why people like being scared. Adrenline rush? Most TV news runs that way. I never understood the popularity of horror flicks.
Short-sighted, maybe. But more likely playing the odds: most of the people DAs charge _are_ guilty and/or _will_ cave to pressure. Huge problems happen when an innocent person enters the meatgrinder. And not just for them if they are resolute.
The real culprit here is lazyiness/"efficiency" (cashless corruption) -- many police jump at anything to "solve the crime", and DAs are lazy about reviewing their cases. Mostly because they can get away with it. When they can't, smart DAs avoid escalation and cut their losses early. This dude has not, so risks going down bigtime. Unfortunately only max disbarment, not prison.
On one charge? This looks _very_ fishy. Conditions on bail would certainly include no computer use. I suspect the real motive for the DA is to use incarceration as pressure for some sort of plea bargain. Any bargain, because their case is weak / non-existant. Highly corrupt.
The DA has to pressure, because if he does NOT cave, they're facing a multi-million $ lawsuit for wrongful (or even malicious where less would be protected by privilige) prosecution. This will ruin careers. As it should.
Traditionally, the UK Parlement has had primacy and complete authority without any overarching controls such as the US Constitution serves in the American system. Whatever they pass becomes new law, and old law is automatically modified/voided.
Now, with the EU, Parlement might face some laws being invalidated by EU courts. A bigger question is whether the UK Courts can or will respect EU findings. It may be that UK citizens will have to petition EU courts, but UK courts might not enforce the rulings.
The national US Do Not Call registry has very severe penalties for those who make unsolicited business calls without a prior business relationship. $500/call IIRC
So just charge'em! Get details on the callers, and start the complain/enforcement process.
Of course, they will try to prove they have a prior business relationship. But will not be able to -- they're just fishing, trying to find the real people they foolishly loaned money to. So they'll pay for their unsolicited calls. Serve the basterds right!
One thing missing here (and indeed in some statutes) is the concept of "mens rea", the guilty intent. Yes, this could be trespassing or it could be theft. The prosecutors (Crown) has to establish intent in the break-in.
Breaking & entering or burlary does not require any sort of strong measures be overcome -- just walking through a totally unlocked screen door qualifies. But if you aren't taking anything or doing anything else wrong, then it is trespassing.
The problem with some statute is it attempts to be self-proving -- ie, the act establishes intent. For it to reasonably do so, there must be no possible innocent explanation. Anyone could formulate a query to a webserver. If it honors the query, how is that "unauthorized access"? However, someone might argue if it is not in a clickable URL, then the access is not authorized. I would disagree and state that clickable URLs are "encouragement" or ease of use. Exposing a query language is authorization for its' use. After all, it could easily have been hidden.
Not quite -- there are also costs for hybridization, both in terms of capital and efficiency. The main benefit a diesel hybrid has is regen braking. Nice when in-range, but often irrelevant.
... different problem! Diesel-electric railroad locomotives have small (if any) batteries and the basic reason for the hybridization is to have a workable transmission system for the extremely high starting torques. Electric motors can provide this torque, while diesel generators provide the energy.
The main reason gasoline hybrids get better mileage than direct-coupled engines is that the gasoline engine is not forced to operate at inefficient points on its' BSFC map (near closed throttle). The engine only runs when needed, and then it runs near its' BEP (Best efficiency point), or occasionally at maximum power which also has decent efficiency. It is not forced to idle and off-idle conditions where the pumping losses are horrible and efficiency s#x (5x fuel for same marginal power).
Diesel engines have entirely different BSFC maps, and do not suffer the same pumping losses (vacuum across throttle plate). Their drop off at idle is _much_ lower than for gasoline engines, so they're great in city-wide European traffic jams. Diesel fuel also is ~15% denser (more heat per gallon) and the higher compression ratio is about 5% more theoretically efficient.
But a diesel hybrid does not have much to gain by hybridization. The BSFC map is much flatter, and the engine restarting power & wear is considerably higher.
Slashdot Mirror
The jocks [or anyone who chases dominance] are deeply insecure, and need external support for their fragile egos. Why else be so sensitive to perceived slights? The truly strong merely shrug them off. Strength means confidence, and confidence does not require continual demonstration.
Here I am talking only about constructive society. There are also predatory societies where it is necessary to grab eveything you can. Doomed to implosion. Or in dealing with the stupid, who sometimes need to see teeth.
Since these guys should know themselves best, I take them at their word.
For a general (not compute) server, I'd recommend just using an inexpensive nettop like the Asus EEE. I measure (Kill-o-watt meter) mine at 14W. If you need more than SD cards for storage, get a USB external HD. Or you could try some hacked NAS.
The nice thing about the nettop is you can take it with you if you want, or use it as a full machine my plugging in LCD monitor, kbd, and mouse.
Deliberate combustion is beneath silly: people have laptops to travel. Frequently by aircraft where such devices are prohibited for excellent reason.
Both of these "one-way" solutions neglect a very important loss mechanism -- irrecoverable loss of data. I would guess 10-100x more data is lost than stolen. While theft can very rarely have spectacular "James Bond" consequences, loss of data represents 100s or 1000s of manhours. Risk is not only consequence, but also probability. Do njot ignore frequent smaller consequences.
It is very hard to prevent compromises when the attacker has physical access to the machine.
One thing that might slow/stop the evil maid is a BIOS boot passwd or BIOS disk passwd. This denies the maid a boot or any disk access (respectively). Of course, she could always pop the disk out and write it on her own machine. Unless key [boot] parts were BIOS encrypted.
As usual, security always has some cost for the user and has to be balanced against benefits [reduced risk of loss].
No, very simply I have choices over where to work. If I don't like one company, I can work elsewhere.
Sure, sure, everyone thinks AT&T is _evil_. Fine. More anger because it cannot be proven. But do they not have rights to loyal employees? Or do two wrongs make a right?
People who work at AT&T should broadly agree with the company lest they help something they deplore. If they are "just there for the money", then they've sold out and they cannot claim their free opinion is worth much. Of course, those whine the loudest.
Viewed on a negative basis, police deter lawbreaking by catching offenders so they can be punished downstream in the judicial system. From a positive basis, police create a climate where the people do not need to fear crime and so can be less stressful and more productive. Rather important.
The one thing police should never do is show fear or give into crime. It is a fundamental abdication of responsibility and encourages the lawless. (some inner city areas). If they do, then what is their justification for SWAT -- heavy armament and aggressive tactics? They should just turn tail and run.
I agree the modules are partial nightmares. But the data sides have relatively few branches, usually one chip delivers 8 bits, and branches only for other modules or stubs. The address side has horrible fan-out, but fortunately lots of cycles to settle.
yes, hard to explain because radiation produces _soft_errors_ (re-read and it goes away).
What I have seen (and generated) is the occasional (2-3/day) bus error with specific (nasty) datapatterns. Usually at a few addr. I write that off to mobo trace design and crosstalk between the signals. Failing to round the corners sufficiently, or leaving spurs is the likely problem. I think Hypertransport is a balanced design (push-pull differential like ethernet) and should be less succeptible.
Why should the police be worried about getting a warrent? It is not as if officers are walking around with GPS devices to plant on suspects they suddenly see. No, these are planned operations with justification. Then why not get a warrent?
Police should not be wasting public resources nor possessing and exercising excessive discretion in "following hunches". Get the warrent. Its' easy.
Seriously, I doubt it. English is far too irregular. A pogrom (sic) can only look for regularities, so will reward a particularly stilted style of english. Like "five paragraph themes". Maybe that will satisfy some in the ESL community, but it should not.
A simple test of any pgm is to see how it rates diverse examples of acknowledged great writing: Dickens, Steinbeck, Hardy and many others. You could even leave off poetry and mid.engl like Shakespeare. My guess is it will be pretty good at spotting gramatical errors, and horrible at spotting the far more troublesome logic, sequence and continuinty errors.
OTOH, my wife is an english prof and she spends an unreasonable time at home reading and grading students' papers. I'd love to have her back :) It is _much_ harder work reading papers than dropping scoring sheets into a scantron. She spends more time reading than her most lengthy student spends writing.
Possibly the chief is doing this "to protect his men" and improve dept "morale" and "efficiency". However, that is corrupt -- he is sworn to protect the public, not his men. And the Texas and US Constitutions, not "efficiency". The simple fact is the Constitutions are designed to limit police efficiency to reduce inhibition and promote happiness.
Given the rather extraordinary police powers and discretion, perhaps the public should have absolute privilige with respect to criticism. Zero liability for libel and slander. Or at least and entraordinarily high standard of proof even to start a case. Someone needs to watch the watchers.
Officials hold offices and are doing public things. They have no right of privacy WRT offical acts. And ought not be doing non-offical acts on the public dime.
The real problem is is that law makers (and enforcement) often think themselves above the law. They made/enforced it, so can change/ignore it. Worse, the punishments for such violations is almost always minor. "Whaddyou gonna doo 'bout it?"
A simple answer is to charge felony "obstruction of justice", and have the felony provisions remove from office. This is highly unlikely to happen for reasons of "good buddy" through to not causing excessive fear in the bureaucracy.
The correct thing for a finder to do is to turn it in to the airline or airport lost-n-found (however inefficient they might appear). If it is not duly claimed within a specified period, then they can claim the device. To protect themselves, Amazon ought to require such proof, especially if a device has been reported lost or stolen.
Otherwise, I fail to see any privacy issue. A thief is not entitled to any I can see: the owner remains owner of the device, and can legitimately authorize the execution of any program, even remotely. Even a microphone program unless the microphone where surrupticious and otherwise unexpected (bug on the device).
Of course the kids have privacy rights, but as minors cannot exercise these which the parents/guardians have a fiduciary duty to exercise. The parents doubtless click agreement when the software is installed.
The real problem is that parents are scared into agreement by media overhyping low probability events and omitting crucial explanations / causes. So the parents hear: "Your kids could be another Columbine or victim" to sell whatever schlock they're peddling. Non-sequitur but the data is obscured.
A bigger question is why people like being scared. Adrenline rush? Most TV news runs that way. I never understood the popularity of horror flicks.
The real culprit here is lazyiness/"efficiency" (cashless corruption) -- many police jump at anything to "solve the crime", and DAs are lazy about reviewing their cases. Mostly because they can get away with it. When they can't, smart DAs avoid escalation and cut their losses early. This dude has not, so risks going down bigtime. Unfortunately only max disbarment, not prison.
_
On one charge? This looks _very_ fishy. Conditions on bail would certainly include no computer use. I suspect the real motive for the DA is to use incarceration as pressure for some sort of plea bargain. Any bargain, because their case is weak / non-existant. Highly corrupt.
The DA has to pressure, because if he does NOT cave, they're facing a multi-million $ lawsuit for wrongful (or even malicious where less would be protected by privilige) prosecution. This will ruin careers. As it should.
Traditionally, the UK Parlement has had primacy and complete authority without any overarching controls such as the US Constitution serves in the American system. Whatever they pass becomes new law, and old law is automatically modified/voided.
Now, with the EU, Parlement might face some laws being invalidated by EU courts. A bigger question is whether the UK Courts can or will respect EU findings. It may be that UK citizens will have to petition EU courts, but UK courts might not enforce the rulings.
It is going to be fun to watch.
The national US Do Not Call registry has very severe penalties for those who make unsolicited business calls without a prior business relationship. $500/call IIRC
So just charge'em! Get details on the callers, and start the complain/enforcement process.
Of course, they will try to prove they have a prior business relationship. But will not be able to -- they're just fishing, trying to find the real people they foolishly loaned money to. So they'll pay for their unsolicited calls. Serve the basterds right!
One thing missing here (and indeed in some statutes) is the concept of "mens rea", the guilty intent. Yes, this could be trespassing or it could be theft. The prosecutors (Crown) has to establish intent in the break-in.
Breaking & entering or burlary does not require any sort of strong measures be overcome -- just walking through a totally unlocked screen door qualifies. But if you aren't taking anything or doing anything else wrong, then it is trespassing.
The problem with some statute is it attempts to be self-proving -- ie, the act establishes intent. For it to reasonably do so, there must be no possible innocent explanation. Anyone could formulate a query to a webserver. If it honors the query, how is that "unauthorized access"? However, someone might argue if it is not in a clickable URL, then the access is not authorized. I would disagree and state that clickable URLs are "encouragement" or ease of use. Exposing a query language is authorization for its' use. After all, it could easily have been hidden.
Not quite -- there are also costs for hybridization, both in terms of capital and efficiency. The main benefit a diesel hybrid has is regen braking. Nice when in-range, but often irrelevant.
... different problem! Diesel-electric railroad locomotives have small (if any) batteries and the basic reason for the hybridization is to have a workable transmission system for the extremely high starting torques. Electric motors can provide this torque, while diesel generators provide the energy.
The main reason gasoline hybrids get better mileage than direct-coupled engines is that the gasoline engine is not forced to operate at inefficient points on its' BSFC map (near closed throttle). The engine only runs when needed, and then it runs near its' BEP (Best efficiency point), or occasionally at maximum power which also has decent efficiency. It is not forced to idle and off-idle conditions where the pumping losses are horrible and efficiency s#x (5x fuel for same marginal power).
Diesel engines have entirely different BSFC maps, and do not suffer the same pumping losses (vacuum across throttle plate). Their drop off at idle is _much_ lower than for gasoline engines, so they're great in city-wide European traffic jams. Diesel fuel also is ~15% denser (more heat per gallon) and the higher compression ratio is about 5% more theoretically efficient.
But a diesel hybrid does not have much to gain by hybridization. The BSFC map is much flatter, and the engine restarting power & wear is considerably higher.