People shouldn't engage in assholery with people who are responsible for protecting the security and lives of others. Most sane people wouldn't pull out a realistic-looking toy gun, point it at a police officer, and laugh and say, "Ha ha! I'm just kidding! No need to get all upset about a simple joke..." But then we have people who think it's perfectly fine to engage in such tomfoolery with TSA agents.
Agreed/ Its called suicide by cop. And it happens more than you think.
Knowing that TSA doesn't have guns makes this a semi-safe bit of attention getting, with charges that seldom stick, but a notoriety that does. The guy HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that would be the result.
Allegedly (and I do mean that in the legal sense, as there is not a single photo of evidence) he had hollowed out compartments in the multiple insoles in his boots. Supposedly the watch contained fuses. What kind? Electrical, or det-cord? It screams Dry Run if you are a TSA agent even in the absence of any explosive. That is what they are trained to look for.
Intelligent people who just want to get to their destination would pack it in luggage, or explain to TSA BEFORE they get to the gate what it is and why he is carrying it so that he could avoid arrest.
Was it Steampunk, as some have alleged? Perhaps. But something that elaborate and expensive would make more sense in packed luggage. I still think he was seeking attention. He got it.
Any wire will do, including your phone charger, or the spare cat 5 wire you always carry in your computer bag, earbuds for your phone, the phone itself, etc.
ANY wire constitutes bomb making equipment.
The fact that he was a short dude and wanted to be taller and used multiple insoles to achieve that is also somehow a crime.
We still have to entertain the possibility that he got exactly what he was looking for, notoriety and fame.
Who builds a watch with wires and "fuses" hanging out of it and then walks thru airport security? Really, who does that?
Fools and idiot attention seekers. Any terrorist would be much more clever. The charges leveled are probably simply to hold him on till they dig through his life. When released, he will probably try to sell his watches to other fools based on his new found fame.
[t]here still is an unanswered question: how did the ssh key get stolen? While its nice to see that FreeBSD wasn't breached due to a vulnerability in *its* systems, someone obviously had a vulnerability in their system.
The explanation is simple enough, and provided on the compromise notice:
The compromise is believed to have occurred due to the leak of an SSH key from a developer who legitimately had access to the machines in question, and was not due to any vulnerability or code exploit within FreeBSD.
It only takes one instance of walking away from your workstation leaving it running to have a co-worker slip into your chair and email your.ssh directory to some obscure off shore email address, then remove the outgoing email from the "sent" list. A stolen phone, a purloined laptop, the possibilities are endless, although in the latter two instances you would expect revocations to be issued (assuming you had a backup copy somewhere)..
Once someone has your private key they ARE you, and it it was done without being immediately discovered, the key could linger in the wild for months or years.
Am I really the only one that considered the possibility that there's fewer deaths cause single officers are more likely to act more carefully?
In fact that is exactly what happened, contrary to what all those who refuse to read the linked articles but feel compelled to pontificate think. They also are much more aware while on patrol because they are not always talking with their partners.
I don't even know why the discussion is still raging, because all you have to do is look out your windows at the next cop car you see and take a head count. The vast majority of you will see single officer cars. If we eliminated NYC and Detroit and a few other tough neighborhood cities you will probably find that single officer cars are the norm everywhere in the U.S. On a recent cross country trip I was amazed to find two officer police cars, till I realized I was in Boston.
Then I suggest you trace it to the source and read the whole study. Bear in mind that this isn't the only such study to arrive at the same conclusion.
Departments don't often deploy both in the same area. And they don't route two officer cars across town when one or more single officer cars are closer. They simply send more than one car.
Multiple cars with single officers are more efficient and safer than single cars with dual officers.
You watch too much TV. Its hard to have dialog in the show unless there are partners.
Seriously, the only places you see two officer cars are in areas where crime is so rampant that cops are afraid to go alone.
Even cities that are known for two officer cars don't use that model all the time (NYC for example typically use one officer cars in the burbs). San Diego actually found it safer and more efficient to have only one officer per car.
The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles. This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety. From Here
Every time a single officer is killed it becomes a big emotional issue but most departments run single officer cars in most areas for most of the time, with some exceptions for high crime cities.
The funny thing is this "Mobile Office" resembles a lot of US Police squad cars, especially those in larger cities.
Built in computers with direct access to multiple databases, GPS tracking of the car as well as nearby police cars. automated license plate readers, more radios than you can count, video cameras, and printers for your citation.
The sad part is the cops drive while reading from and typing on these computers.
Steam is self-updating, why would they need to rely on a package manager?
That in itself is something of a problem if you ask me. Unfortunately, it seems to be the way a lot of packages want to go these days. We've seen it on some platforms with various things like Google Chrome, FireFox, Google Earth, Thunderbird, etc.
The opportunity for unintentional mass-breakage is wide open. The potential for some intentional skuldegerous subversion of the update servers is less wide open, but would be far more devastating if someone pulled it off.
You still need a package manager (or some installation method) for new/first time users. You can't update what you don't have.
"You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce,"
That seems overly broad, and maybe the place to start is to grab Valve by the wattles and slap them till they spit. What the hell were they thinking when they wrote that mess?
When government itself can't even harden its own systems and air-gap critical systems from the wild and woolly web, putting them in charge of controlling the internet in general is simply the TSA all over again.
The Cyber Security act was and is simultaneously too broad and to toothless. It would be necessary to prop it up with all sorts of invasive regulations. It would inevitably lead to internet police, and digital pat-downs of every aspect of internet usage.
I wish people would stop couching things in Republican/Democrat terms and actually LOOK at the legislation.
Any competent distro can install Debian packages via various foreign package tools.
The issue is that some of these Distros are going out of their way to accommodate a non GPL package, and a beta one at that.
Its a binary blob.
Any time a Distro starts messing with those, its on very thin ice. Most don't. They just write scripts that will fetch the original and do what ever is necessary to install it if the user chooses. Or they seek official permission to re-package. This is very common with Video drivers, etc.
The proper way is to fetch the binary from what ever legal source Valve provides, and install it using what ever foreign package utilities they have. That way they live within valve's license. Its the only reasonable way. Why take on a packaging headache for a binary blob?
Part of what was troubling from Valve's Steam license comes down to "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program."
Nice doesn't enter into it. I owe no loyalty to crappy implementations simply because I used them before.
Lots of software wanders off the reservation from time to time and needs to be replaced, or forked back to a point in time where it was working well. If the Dev's won't listen to Linus, what other choices are there?
Actually the total market has ceases growing for now, and it is simply replacing feature phones. Total subscribers is down 3 percent. The only segment growing is smartphones.
Apple has a huge install base. Its easy for them to make 5 million phones, and sell out in the first month. Makes good headlines. As long as you don't look closely and notice that Samsung sold 30 million in the comparable period. Without selling out.
I agree that apple makes nice hardware. Not the best by far. The iphone UI needs a total makeover. And this whole mentality that you pretty much need a computer to own an iPhone has got to go.
Almost as much Apple's sales numbers are composed of reselling phones to the same iPhone loyalists who haven't even paid off the prior iPhone. Apple is eating its young, and it's market share shows it.
No, it's still a hub because everyone still uses the same channel.
No, you've missed the point. Nutria had it right.
It is almost exactly like converting the AP from a hub to a switch, because the AP gets to tell all the stations to STFU, and then handles traffic of each station one at a time, giving each at full upstream bandwidth, while the other stations wait until are allowed to speak. Switch.
One has to wonder if the Navy was all that successful or just willing to handle a portion of the job, or willing to settle for half the result.
You will never know, because those who do have too much ass to cover, and they will be slipping in fixes and upgrades for decades, before deciding the whole thing is too top heavy.
Systems of this size are grandiose and seldom successful. Not only government fails at systems this big, private industry does as well. But private industry learns from their costly mistakes faster. Google is a good example. They hold a house cleaning each spring and just arbitrarily kill off projects that have no chance of a ROI.
Its amazing that two world wars were fought with this kind of stuff being handled by people.
What is the likelyhood that something simple, fair, and with no elephants hiding in the bushes has been missed by all the queuing experts lo these many years?
Still one has to ask how much bandwidth the other units get while the porn downloader gets full bandwidth just so the router can clear its buffers.
It seems like this scheme favors the worst offenders, and imposed delays on the rest of the network users instead of telling the flooder to STFU.
We've been using TCP/IP for decades and burned up thousands of hours in queuing theory, simulations, etc. What is the chance they missed something that big?
Linking against a library, I thought that was still an unsettled issue?
Didn't the google/oracle decision tilt the scales against usurpation of owners rights simply because they referenced libraries that were meant to be linked? I forget the details.
Stethoscopes don't really have any moving parts, and I would be extremely surprised to hear of life or death decisions based solely on a Stethoscope.
The money in medical software/hardware isn't building it, it's certifying it.
Neither does an EEG. And life and death decisions based solely on a Stethoscope have been the standard for 100 years. As for certifying it, see my first sentence.
RTS could make Red Hat happy by running a Black Duck analysis on their proprietary code and sharing the result.
That would likely not be reliable, since the wrote the original and forked it into the kernel, and developed the original further into their own product. The analysis would certainly contain many false positives since the kernel source came from proprietary source.
Besides, its only the back-flow of contributed changes that would make the GPL apply to their original code, and perhaps not even that would be sufficient. Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
People shouldn't engage in assholery with people who are responsible for protecting the security and lives of others. Most sane people wouldn't pull out a realistic-looking toy gun, point it at a police officer, and laugh and say, "Ha ha! I'm just kidding! No need to get all upset about a simple joke..." But then we have people who think it's perfectly fine to engage in such tomfoolery with TSA agents.
Agreed/
Its called suicide by cop. And it happens more than you think.
Knowing that TSA doesn't have guns makes this a semi-safe bit of attention getting, with charges that seldom stick, but a notoriety that does. The guy HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that would be the result.
Allegedly (and I do mean that in the legal sense, as there is not a single photo of evidence) he had hollowed out compartments in the multiple insoles in his boots. Supposedly the watch contained fuses. What kind? Electrical, or det-cord?
It screams Dry Run if you are a TSA agent even in the absence of any explosive. That is what they are trained to look for.
Intelligent people who just want to get to their destination would pack it in luggage, or explain to TSA BEFORE they get to the gate what it is and why he is carrying it so that he could avoid arrest.
Was it Steampunk, as some have alleged? Perhaps. But something that elaborate and expensive would make more sense in packed luggage. I still think he was seeking attention. He got it.
You don't need a spool of wire.
Any wire will do, including your phone charger, or the spare cat 5 wire you always carry in your computer bag,
earbuds for your phone, the phone itself, etc.
ANY wire constitutes bomb making equipment.
The fact that he was a short dude and wanted to be taller and used multiple insoles to achieve that is also
somehow a crime.
We still have to entertain the possibility that he got exactly what he was looking for, notoriety and fame.
Who builds a watch with wires and "fuses" hanging out of it and then walks thru airport security?
Really, who does that?
Fools and idiot attention seekers. Any terrorist would be much more clever. The charges leveled are
probably simply to hold him on till they dig through his life. When released, he will probably try to sell
his watches to other fools based on his new found fame.
[t]here still is an unanswered question: how did the ssh key get stolen? While its nice to see that FreeBSD wasn't breached due to a vulnerability in *its* systems, someone obviously had a vulnerability in their system.
The explanation is simple enough, and provided on the compromise notice:
The compromise is believed to have occurred due to the leak of an SSH key from a developer who legitimately had access to the machines in question, and was not due to any vulnerability or code exploit within FreeBSD.
It only takes one instance of walking away from your workstation leaving it running to have a co-worker slip into your chair and email your .ssh directory to some obscure off shore email address, then remove the outgoing email from the "sent" list. A stolen phone, a purloined laptop, the possibilities are endless, although in the latter two instances you would expect revocations to be issued (assuming you had a backup copy somewhere)..
Once someone has your private key they ARE you, and it it was done without being immediately discovered, the key could linger in the wild for months or years.
Am I really the only one that considered the possibility that there's fewer deaths cause single officers are more likely to act more carefully?
In fact that is exactly what happened, contrary to what all those who refuse to read the linked articles but feel compelled to pontificate think.
They also are much more aware while on patrol because they are not always talking with their partners.
I don't even know why the discussion is still raging, because all you have to do is look out your windows at the next cop car you see and take a head count. The vast majority of you will see single officer cars. If we eliminated NYC and Detroit and a few other tough neighborhood cities you will probably find that single officer cars are the norm everywhere in the U.S. On a recent cross country trip I was amazed to find two officer police cars, till I realized I was in Boston.
Then I suggest you trace it to the source and read the whole study. Bear in mind that this isn't the only such study to arrive at the same conclusion.
Departments don't often deploy both in the same area. And they don't route two officer cars across town when one or more single officer cars are closer. They simply send more than one car.
Multiple cars with single officers are more efficient and safer than single cars with dual officers.
You watch too much TV. Its hard to have dialog in the show unless there are partners.
Seriously, the only places you see two officer cars are in areas where crime is so rampant that cops are afraid
to go alone.
Even cities that are known for two officer cars don't use that model all the time (NYC for example typically use one officer cars in the burbs). San Diego actually found it safer and more efficient to have only one officer per car.
The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles. This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety. From Here
Every time a single officer is killed it becomes a big emotional issue but most departments run single officer cars in most areas for most of the time, with some exceptions for high crime cities.
The funny thing is this "Mobile Office" resembles a lot of US Police squad cars, especially those in larger cities.
Built in computers with direct access to multiple databases, GPS tracking of the car as well as nearby police cars.
automated license plate readers, more radios than you can count, video cameras, and printers for your citation.
The sad part is the cops drive while reading from and typing on these computers.
Seriously, you just posted that to YELL at me about a trifling disagreement about terminology?
Where are my mod point....?
Steam is self-updating, why would they need to rely on a package manager?
That in itself is something of a problem if you ask me. Unfortunately, it seems to be the way a lot of packages want to go these days.
We've seen it on some platforms with various things like Google Chrome, FireFox, Google Earth, Thunderbird, etc.
The opportunity for unintentional mass-breakage is wide open. The potential for some intentional skuldegerous subversion of the update servers is less wide open, but would be far more devastating if someone pulled it off.
You still need a package manager (or some installation method) for new/first time users. You can't update what you don't have.
Or put the package in non-free....
Except Valve says:
"You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce,"
That seems overly broad, and maybe the place to start is to grab Valve by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
What the hell were they thinking when they wrote that mess?
Exactly.
When government itself can't even harden its own systems and air-gap critical systems from the wild and woolly web, putting them in charge of controlling the internet in general is simply the TSA all over again.
The Cyber Security act was and is simultaneously too broad and to toothless. It would be necessary to prop it up with all sorts of invasive regulations. It would inevitably lead to internet police, and digital pat-downs of every aspect of internet usage.
I wish people would stop couching things in Republican/Democrat terms and actually LOOK at the legislation.
The packaging is not the issue here.
Any competent distro can install Debian packages via various foreign package tools.
The issue is that some of these Distros are going out of their way to accommodate a non GPL package, and a beta one at that.
Its a binary blob.
Any time a Distro starts messing with those, its on very thin ice. Most don't. They just write scripts that will fetch the original and
do what ever is necessary to install it if the user chooses. Or they seek official permission to re-package. This is very common with Video drivers, etc.
The proper way is to fetch the binary from what ever legal source Valve provides, and install it using what ever foreign package utilities they have.
That way they live within valve's license. Its the only reasonable way. Why take on a packaging headache for a binary blob?
Part of what was troubling from Valve's Steam license comes down to "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program."
Nice doesn't enter into it.
I owe no loyalty to crappy implementations simply because I used them before.
Lots of software wanders off the reservation from time to time and needs to be replaced, or forked back to a point in time where it was working well. If the Dev's won't listen to Linus, what other choices are there?
Pictures, or it didn't happen.
Oh, wait...
And this whole mentality that you pretty much need a computer to own an iPhone has got to go.
iOS 5 did away with that requirement.
Not totally.
Major updates still pretty much require a computer.
Actually the total market has ceases growing for now, and it is simply replacing feature phones. Total subscribers is down 3 percent. The only segment growing is smartphones.
Apple has a huge install base. Its easy for them to make 5 million phones, and sell out in the first month.
Makes good headlines. As long as you don't look closely and notice that Samsung sold 30 million in the comparable period. Without selling out.
I agree that apple makes nice hardware. Not the best by far.
The iphone UI needs a total makeover. And this whole mentality that you pretty much need a computer to own an iPhone has got to go.
Almost as much Apple's sales numbers are composed of reselling phones to the same iPhone loyalists who haven't even paid off the prior iPhone.
Apple is eating its young, and it's market share shows it.
iOS 2012 market share 13.9%
iOS 2011 market share 15.0%.
The difference is that most network admins shirk from the task of responsibly implementing QoS,
Maybe that is because its impossible to implement QOS over anything but the smallest of networks, and then only for a subset of users.
No, it's still a hub because everyone still uses the same channel.
No, you've missed the point. Nutria had it right.
It is almost exactly like converting the AP from a hub to a switch, because the AP gets to tell all the stations to STFU, and then handles traffic of each station one at a time, giving each at full upstream bandwidth, while the other stations wait until are allowed to speak. Switch.
Read carefully the Abstract at the bottom of this page: http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wms-gupta-wifi/
One has to wonder if the Navy was all that successful or just willing to handle a portion of the job, or willing to settle for half the result.
You will never know, because those who do have too much ass to cover, and they will be slipping in fixes and upgrades for decades, before deciding the whole thing is too top heavy.
Systems of this size are grandiose and seldom successful. Not only government fails at systems this big, private industry does as well. But private industry learns from their costly mistakes faster. Google is a good example. They hold a house cleaning each spring and just arbitrarily kill off projects that have no chance of a ROI.
Its amazing that two world wars were fought with this kind of stuff being handled by people.
Exactly my thoughts.
What is the likelyhood that something simple, fair, and with no elephants hiding in the bushes has been missed by all the queuing experts lo these many years?
Still one has to ask how much bandwidth the other units get while the porn downloader gets full bandwidth just so the router can clear its buffers.
It seems like this scheme favors the worst offenders, and imposed delays on the rest of the network users instead of telling the flooder to STFU.
We've been using TCP/IP for decades and burned up thousands of hours in queuing theory, simulations, etc. What is the chance they missed something that big?
Linking against a library, I thought that was still an unsettled issue?
Didn't the google/oracle decision tilt the scales against usurpation of owners rights simply because they referenced libraries that were meant to be linked?
I forget the details.
Stethoscopes don't really have any moving parts, and I would be extremely surprised to hear of life or death decisions based solely on a Stethoscope.
The money in medical software/hardware isn't building it, it's certifying it.
Neither does an EEG.
And life and death decisions based solely on a Stethoscope have been the standard for 100 years.
As for certifying it, see my first sentence.
RTS could make Red Hat happy by running a Black Duck analysis on their proprietary code and sharing the result.
That would likely not be reliable, since the wrote the original and forked it into the kernel, and developed the original further into their own product. The analysis would certainly contain many false positives since the kernel source came from proprietary source.
Besides, its only the back-flow of contributed changes that would make the GPL apply to their original code, and perhaps not even that
would be sufficient. Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?