I disagree, collection agencies whole intent is to be immoral (keyword being agencies, there's nothing wrong with collections). The only reason it's profitable to pay an outside company to collect debts is because they can cross those lines of morality and decency that would have landed Comcast in a PR nightmare. It's a shell game to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Customers should be responsible to pay their debts and companies should bear scrutiny for how they treat their customers.
Lengthening the time of the amber light decreases accidents without the trade-off.
No it just shifts those accidents to other intersections. People will adapt to push the yellow to the limit no matter how long you make it. Consistency is the most important thing with yellows.
Yes the conversion to DC is inevitable. This makes a lot of sense when you're using a UPS. When on battery power it converts from DC-AC so your PSU can convert from AC-DC. WTF?
This is exactly the confusion. The user thought he bought a product. If a product isn't delivered it can become fraud.
Then the lawyers come in and no one buys anything. They license permission to use. It's a bunch of handwaving but ultimately a deception against the consumer.
Just like now when someone else opens an account in my name, it's no longer fraud but "identity theft". The bank would be at fault for fraud, but now the individual is at fault that someone else claimed to be him and the bank didn't verify.
Not only are there significant technological hurdles, of course, since you have to make your self-driving car capable of coping with all the regular cars and pedestrians and so on, but there are legal hurdles. The first time your car gets in a major accident, you are getting sued big time and it'll be humans, not car computers, on the jury. Say your car hits and kills a pedestrian because there was simply no way to avoid it at all. Their family will sue you for tons.
Not a problem. Insurance will take care of it. Which is why the "legal hurdles" on autonomous cars is meaningless. If the cars are safer (and it'd be hard not to be within 10 years) insurance will be happy to insure you at the same rate and use the increased margins from real damage to quash those bogus lawsuits.
you've got a 64Gb ssd on SDB it say's it's 50Gb partition
You buy a 50GB drive. Linux sees it as 50GB drive. However it's overprovisioned to 64GB (in your example) and the controller manages that extra space. On the plus side the controller is naturally going to want to zero out that overprovisioned space so it can be rewritten to.
that cat/dev/urandom >/dev/sdX is exactly what doesn't work with SSDs. Try rm -rf *, that the current article is claiming to work quite well.
Or, if you are really paranoid, repeatedly do cat/dev/urandom > FILE_IN_SSD after you do rm -rf *.
Linux won't actually remove files that processes have open file descriptors to (it removes the link but doesn't deallocate the space). That means their cwd dentry (and all it's parents) will be intact (just unlinked) on disk. So your cat won't actually destroy these phantom blocks. Those dentries could have incrimating filenames of files that their space was deallocated.
A format will however overwrite this metadata and the SSD garbage collection should still be able to clean up.
Just to demonstrate this phantom file on linux: echo 123>x; sleep 9999 >> x & rm x cat/proc/${!}/fd/1 stat/proc/${!}/fd/1
Nope.. it works just fine; it will write a new value to each end every storage location in the device. Eventually this will overwrite every bit of data stored there including the coolstuff.rar file. It cannot fail, also see my previous post; there is no secret extra storage for the data to hide in and avoid overwriting.
No, hitting all the logical blocks with random data won't hit all the physical blocks because of overprovisioning. There is a ~7% extra space the OS doesn't get access to that is used to improve performance and control bad sectors. This is not a big deal since it's not addressable and the firmware should clean it up eventually.
Secondly you'll overwrite the MFT/Superblock with random data and then the SSD firmware won't be capable of doing garbage collection. Which is fine if you have the time to finish a long process of overwriting every sector. But if it gets interrupted your data will be left and the GC won't be able to clean it up on next power-on.
You're the one who said security is a process not a product, but are you questioning whether physical security is worth spending an amount of money which effectively looks like a rounding error on a government department balance sheet?
Airgapping a network in a room is cheap. Airgapping a network in a building is not trivial (separate network infrastructure and auditing to make sure no one swaps the red and black ethernet cables). Airgapping a network in a WAN is financially irresponsible for almost anyone. Satellite links, wireless, and vlans aren't airgap.
Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:
-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on. -The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge -The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.
I would say reprimand the manager and remove him from leadership. Rotate lawyers so they don't get complacent. Finally reprimand the individual and require he have oversight by a coworker for a period. Then conduct retraining of whole office by legal.
The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness. That's the difference between a novice and an experienced bowler. When it happens it's probably because the individual wasn't trained well enough or didn't have good enough access to legal. I think it's a case of Hanlon's Razor.
Your post is now the #1 result on bing for that search. Too bad Bing doesn't have an "I'm feeling lucky" you could have linked to a search that would have taken you directly back to your post.
But you can't define 1 atmosphere without defining the kilogram first.
You can define 1 atmosphere, you just can't quantify 1 atmosphere. You just have to do it based on real world conditions without assigning it a number. Those real world conditions will shift far more then the reference weight though.
Not really. If you roll a 6 sided die 6 times, you don't "expect" to see each side exactly once, but over 600 rolls, you'd expect approximately 100 of each side.
First off "expected" has meaning in statistics, it's simply the weighted average.
Also you're using a rare event as an example. Six dice rolls with uniform distribution would only roll each side exactly once at approximately 1.5% chance (calculation below). Evenly distributed means even probabilities, not even outcomes.
In fact getting six different rolls in six throws would be evidence that it is not evenly distributed (that there might be an outside influence) but at such a low confidence level that it could (and should) be disregarded.
6!/(1!^6)*(1/6)^6 =~ 1.5%
PS. 600 dice rolls is much less likely to give an exact even outcomes. 600!/(100!^6)*(1/6)^600 =~ 1 in 4million
The bigger mistake by GP is to not understand the word "distributed" in statistics. It doesn't mean "how far apart" like in common usage. If you deny climate change, you believe there is equal probability for each year to be picked as an outlier year, a uniform distribution (or as he says it, evenly distributed).
Given the values one can calculate a confidence level that it is NOT evenly distributed. Presumably that's what the researcher did, I've never known journalists to publish confidence levels.
It really should be as simple as being paid according to the value you contribute to the company. The old-school paradigm of simply being paid more because you've been there longer doesn't encourage employees to make themselves more valuable (learn new skills, develop capabilities for instance).
Here's a hint from the real world. You don't learn new skills to bring value to a company, because they won't give more then a pittance raise. You learn new skills to leave the company for a better position. It's a broken system. Companies should do more to encourage moving positions within and reward training.
Being a senior developer does not excuse you from learning all the hot new techs. If you aren't getting better, you're getting worse. If you wanted a field where you aren't always learning new stuff, may I suggest barber college?
Learning new techs doesn't get you a raise at any job I've been at. It just means you're more marketable to leave the company. Perhaps companies should provide incentives to learning if they want it. Heck I've seen a coworker earn his Masters degree while working fulltime, he went to boss to ask for raise. When they refused, he left a few months later.
I can understand both sides. If you're fulfilling same role why should a company give a promotion? But it just leads to an unhealthy workforce with high turnover.
Thought experiment: I want to transfer data with you. I have Cable, you have fios and they have a peering agreement. We transfer roughly same amount and things work great. Then one day our business relationship changes and we both want me to transfer 10x as much data. My cable plan allows it and has enough bandwidth to handle it. Your fios plan also allows it and has enough bandwidth. However the interlink between cable and fios networks can't handle the new surge of traffic.
Who should pay for the new interlinks?
That's what this issue is about. This isn't about net neutrality because comcast isn't targeting netflix. It's a problem of raw amount of traffic and who pays for it. Traditionally it's been the sender (not the requester, these are big backbone networks and don't have the capability to track state of billions of connections). This is because it's cheaper to add bandwidth to servers then clients. A server can be colocated, clients can't.
Net neutrality definition is heavily debated but I define it as discriminating how you handle traffic based on: 1. Source and/or destination 2. Protocol or Type of service 3. Content
Which Comcast is not doing in this case. Comcast is an evil evil company, but I'm afraid they're right in this case.
Warning: A third party plugin, PluginNameHere, has been installed without user consent: DELETE KEEP
And if you click Keep, you have to save that setting somewhere. If I'm going through the trouble to do an plugin install (for the good of my users of course) why would I not save that setting (it saves my user a click). If someone wants to add a toolbar to firefox they will make it happen. They'll patch the binary, they'll clobber configs or setting files. Why? they're doing it for the users of course. Those users want your dancing hippo buddy and why should a bunch of unix hippy nerds stop them.
Keep in mind, toolbars existed before browsers implemented toolbar capability. They didn't do it by cooperating with the browser.
The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.
The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.
No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.
What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.
Bah first rule of digging up pirate treasure is that you don't tell people you just found pirate treasure. Just be glad you didn't know the truth or they would have had to run you through with a cutlass (which they also found).
Question for you - what benefit does Microsoft gain from enforcing DRM?
They get to lock customers in. They convince media giants that their DRM is secure and should be used for all digital releases. So the media will say it works on Windows Vista/7 only.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree, collection agencies whole intent is to be immoral (keyword being agencies, there's nothing wrong with collections). The only reason it's profitable to pay an outside company to collect debts is because they can cross those lines of morality and decency that would have landed Comcast in a PR nightmare. It's a shell game to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Customers should be responsible to pay their debts and companies should bear scrutiny for how they treat their customers.
Lengthening the time of the amber light decreases accidents without the trade-off.
No it just shifts those accidents to other intersections. People will adapt to push the yellow to the limit no matter how long you make it. Consistency is the most important thing with yellows.
Domains are your identity on the web. IPs are your location. Certs verify identity of computer you're talking with, they don't need to contain IPs.
I can't violate the DMCA. Sorry.
Seriously, the guy's been dead for 11 years...
So only 59 more years to go on his copyright. I'll consider downloading it then, until then I'm supporting the artist.
Yes the conversion to DC is inevitable. This makes a lot of sense when you're using a UPS. When on battery power it converts from DC-AC so your PSU can convert from AC-DC. WTF?
This is exactly the confusion. The user thought he bought a product. If a product isn't delivered it can become fraud.
Then the lawyers come in and no one buys anything. They license permission to use. It's a bunch of handwaving but ultimately a deception against the consumer.
Just like now when someone else opens an account in my name, it's no longer fraud but "identity theft". The bank would be at fault for fraud, but now the individual is at fault that someone else claimed to be him and the bank didn't verify.
Not only are there significant technological hurdles, of course, since you have to make your self-driving car capable of coping with all the regular cars and pedestrians and so on, but there are legal hurdles. The first time your car gets in a major accident, you are getting sued big time and it'll be humans, not car computers, on the jury. Say your car hits and kills a pedestrian because there was simply no way to avoid it at all. Their family will sue you for tons.
Not a problem. Insurance will take care of it. Which is why the "legal hurdles" on autonomous cars is meaningless. If the cars are safer (and it'd be hard not to be within 10 years) insurance will be happy to insure you at the same rate and use the increased margins from real damage to quash those bogus lawsuits.
you've got a 64Gb ssd on SDB it say's it's 50Gb partition
You buy a 50GB drive. Linux sees it as 50GB drive. However it's overprovisioned to 64GB (in your example) and the controller manages that extra space. On the plus side the controller is naturally going to want to zero out that overprovisioned space so it can be rewritten to.
that cat/dev/urandom > /dev/sdX is exactly what doesn't work with SSDs. Try rm -rf *, that the current article is claiming to work quite well.
Or, if you are really paranoid, repeatedly do cat /dev/urandom > FILE_IN_SSD after you do rm -rf *.
Linux won't actually remove files that processes have open file descriptors to (it removes the link but doesn't deallocate the space). That means their cwd dentry (and all it's parents) will be intact (just unlinked) on disk. So your cat won't actually destroy these phantom blocks. Those dentries could have incrimating filenames of files that their space was deallocated.
A format will however overwrite this metadata and the SSD garbage collection should still be able to clean up.
Just to demonstrate this phantom file on linux: /proc/${!}/fd/1 /proc/${!}/fd/1
echo 123>x; sleep 9999 >> x &
rm x
cat
stat
Nope.. it works just fine; it will write a new value to each end every storage location in the device. Eventually this will overwrite every bit of data stored there including the coolstuff.rar file. It cannot fail, also see my previous post; there is no secret extra storage for the data to hide in and avoid overwriting.
No, hitting all the logical blocks with random data won't hit all the physical blocks because of overprovisioning. There is a ~7% extra space the OS doesn't get access to that is used to improve performance and control bad sectors. This is not a big deal since it's not addressable and the firmware should clean it up eventually.
Secondly you'll overwrite the MFT/Superblock with random data and then the SSD firmware won't be capable of doing garbage collection. Which is fine if you have the time to finish a long process of overwriting every sector. But if it gets interrupted your data will be left and the GC won't be able to clean it up on next power-on.
Paul Stamets had a ted talk on this subject. His research shows that fungi can cause the creation of fertile topsoil for plants to grow.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html
You're the one who said security is a process not a product, but are you questioning whether physical security is worth spending an amount of money which effectively looks like a rounding error on a government department balance sheet?
Airgapping a network in a room is cheap. Airgapping a network in a building is not trivial (separate network infrastructure and auditing to make sure no one swaps the red and black ethernet cables). Airgapping a network in a WAN is financially irresponsible for almost anyone. Satellite links, wireless, and vlans aren't airgap.
You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.
So was IPv4
Usually it's not so clear-cut. Who do you prosecute:
-The manager who was told by the lawyer it was legal and he didn't know the full extent of what was going on.
-The lawyer who was doing his best attempt to interpret law but came to a different conclusion then the judge
-The individual executing the wiretap under order from management and who received compliance training from the lawyer who misinterpreted law.
I would say reprimand the manager and remove him from leadership. Rotate lawyers so they don't get complacent. Finally reprimand the individual and require he have oversight by a coworker for a period. Then conduct retraining of whole office by legal.
The real problem is when you try to go to the very edge of the line every time, sometimes you'll accidentally cross it with no maliciousness. That's the difference between a novice and an experienced bowler. When it happens it's probably because the individual wasn't trained well enough or didn't have good enough access to legal. I think it's a case of Hanlon's Razor.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book
Your post is now the #1 result on bing for that search. Too bad Bing doesn't have an "I'm feeling lucky" you could have linked to a search that would have taken you directly back to your post.
But you can't define 1 atmosphere without defining the kilogram first.
You can define 1 atmosphere, you just can't quantify 1 atmosphere. You just have to do it based on real world conditions without assigning it a number. Those real world conditions will shift far more then the reference weight though.
Not really. If you roll a 6 sided die 6 times, you don't "expect" to see each side exactly once, but over 600 rolls, you'd expect approximately 100 of each side.
First off "expected" has meaning in statistics, it's simply the weighted average.
Also you're using a rare event as an example. Six dice rolls with uniform distribution would only roll each side exactly once at approximately 1.5% chance (calculation below). Evenly distributed means even probabilities, not even outcomes.
In fact getting six different rolls in six throws would be evidence that it is not evenly distributed (that there might be an outside influence) but at such a low confidence level that it could (and should) be disregarded.
6!/(1!^6)*(1/6)^6 =~ 1.5%
PS. 600 dice rolls is much less likely to give an exact even outcomes. 600!/(100!^6)*(1/6)^600 =~ 1 in 4million
The bigger mistake by GP is to not understand the word "distributed" in statistics. It doesn't mean "how far apart" like in common usage. If you deny climate change, you believe there is equal probability for each year to be picked as an outlier year, a uniform distribution (or as he says it, evenly distributed).
Given the values one can calculate a confidence level that it is NOT evenly distributed. Presumably that's what the researcher did, I've never known journalists to publish confidence levels.
It really should be as simple as being paid according to the value you contribute to the company. The old-school paradigm of simply being paid more because you've been there longer doesn't encourage employees to make themselves more valuable (learn new skills, develop capabilities for instance).
Here's a hint from the real world. You don't learn new skills to bring value to a company, because they won't give more then a pittance raise. You learn new skills to leave the company for a better position. It's a broken system. Companies should do more to encourage moving positions within and reward training.
Being a senior developer does not excuse you from learning all the hot new techs. If you aren't getting better, you're getting worse. If you wanted a field where you aren't always learning new stuff, may I suggest barber college?
Learning new techs doesn't get you a raise at any job I've been at. It just means you're more marketable to leave the company. Perhaps companies should provide incentives to learning if they want it. Heck I've seen a coworker earn his Masters degree while working fulltime, he went to boss to ask for raise. When they refused, he left a few months later.
I can understand both sides. If you're fulfilling same role why should a company give a promotion? But it just leads to an unhealthy workforce with high turnover.
Thought experiment: I want to transfer data with you. I have Cable, you have fios and they have a peering agreement. We transfer roughly same amount and things work great. Then one day our business relationship changes and we both want me to transfer 10x as much data. My cable plan allows it and has enough bandwidth to handle it. Your fios plan also allows it and has enough bandwidth. However the interlink between cable and fios networks can't handle the new surge of traffic.
Who should pay for the new interlinks?
That's what this issue is about. This isn't about net neutrality because comcast isn't targeting netflix. It's a problem of raw amount of traffic and who pays for it. Traditionally it's been the sender (not the requester, these are big backbone networks and don't have the capability to track state of billions of connections). This is because it's cheaper to add bandwidth to servers then clients. A server can be colocated, clients can't.
Net neutrality definition is heavily debated but I define it as discriminating how you handle traffic based on:
1. Source and/or destination
2. Protocol or Type of service
3. Content
Which Comcast is not doing in this case. Comcast is an evil evil company, but I'm afraid they're right in this case.
Warning: A third party plugin, PluginNameHere, has been installed without user consent:
DELETE KEEP
And if you click Keep, you have to save that setting somewhere. If I'm going through the trouble to do an plugin install (for the good of my users of course) why would I not save that setting (it saves my user a click). If someone wants to add a toolbar to firefox they will make it happen. They'll patch the binary, they'll clobber configs or setting files. Why? they're doing it for the users of course. Those users want your dancing hippo buddy and why should a bunch of unix hippy nerds stop them.
Keep in mind, toolbars existed before browsers implemented toolbar capability. They didn't do it by cooperating with the browser.
The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.
The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.
No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.
What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.
Bah first rule of digging up pirate treasure is that you don't tell people you just found pirate treasure. Just be glad you didn't know the truth or they would have had to run you through with a cutlass (which they also found).
Question for you - what benefit does Microsoft gain from enforcing DRM?
They get to lock customers in. They convince media giants that their DRM is secure and should be used for all digital releases. So the media will say it works on Windows Vista/7 only.