The January first death of Charles Hill allegedly involved a drunk man who at least threw a knife at a policeman. The officers returned to duty after 3 days. I'm curious what the witnesses at the shooting saw: the limited video of the event shows plenty of people who could see what was going on next to the train, and none of them acting very alarmed when it happened. (If I'm that close to gunfire, leading children, I'd expect to help them get under cover: I'm forced to assume that they could not hear things very well next to the running train.)
The "unarmed, cuffed, face down" death was Oscar Grant, in 2009, and one of the officers was convicted of murder. The officer only spent one year in jail: that's probably a significant source of the anger of the protests. It does make me wonder if the "protesters" are as confused about the easily checked events as you are, or if the officers on the spot a tthe protests now have to deal with much of this.
Conversely, given the murderous history against Oscar Grant, I'd want to coordinate efforts as a protester to stay away from BART police as well.
Really, it's not excessive. If the officer lets the knifeman get closer, that officer's life is in profound jeopardy, and so are other people's. And shooting someone in the leg in a crowded subway station.
The limited video of the January shooting is not very informative, but the visible officers did _not_ start with their guns out, they started surveying the loading area next to the train,. and the visible officer reacted quite quickly to some off-camera event, so their story is credible..
> If you can hold the computer in your hand, security has little to do with the operating system.
That belief is, of course, completely mistaken and is the source of endless exploits inside wireless equipped LAN's and offices that "trust the people they work with". The threshold is deliberately left so low by both engineers and policy managers with this belief, as a matter of personal convenience, that rootkits and exploits run rampant inside "closed" networks and devices that entirely ignore local security as a matter of policy.
The very low security threshold of such access is ludicrous, and should _never_ have been permitted.
It's not "just" for the current hot single music and video artist copyright owners. There's a great deal of content that governments want the infrastructure to control: this especially includes embarrassing content, such as is available at Wikipedia, but also includes data for mining of their own behavior, such as the very documents the Freedom of Information Act is supposed to provide. The photographs of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison with the goofy, smiling, blonde female soldier in front of a man who'd been tortured to death (available at http://antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560) was far more effective in exposing US misbehavior than a thousand tweets or blogs.
Control of information is vital to all organizations, and it has its uses to protect ordinary privacy of day to day operations from bothersome micromanagement by everyone in the world. But the measures in place for "copyright violation" are easily, and without court involvement under current US law, turned against arbitrary political speech. We're seeing precisely such censorship, at far more serious levels, in the Arab world during current political unrest there, we've seen it in the Communist bloc nations for decades, and it's always dangerous to citizens who lack information about what their own leaders are doing.
This sort of thing is precisely why ICANN faces profound pressure, both overseas to control speech, and in the US to control speech and money, to surrender its international status and become an entirely US corporation. Other countries are, justly, concerned about this.
That was only one factor of my analysis. The additional phase lag and expense and necessity of channeling traffic to those bandwidth throttlers are other such factors. The overcommitted factor is why companies pay the money to use it: it's often cheaper to buy a bandwidth throttler than it is to build out bandwidth infrastructure.
To use your own logic: you keep saying that bandiwidth throttling is QoS. Saying it only meanss you like to repeat yourself. It doesn't validate your argument.
From observation and discussion with ISP's about the bnadwidh shaping for commercial traffic: this is not to protect the consumers from that customer's own traffic interfering with bandwidth sensitive applications, but to manage the costs to the ISP's of strenuous bandwidth use in application slike P2P and gaming that can easily saturate the limited resources they've allocated for "fiber optic speeds" and similar claims that only apply to a few packets or simple FTP transfers, not to the artifically shaped traffic _at all_.
There is a great deal that is "inherently bad" about throttling. It adds complexity and phase delay to all network traffic, it often creates new single points of failure to force the traffic through the relevant "traffic shaping" device, and it's quite expensive to implement in hardware and to maintain.
Its actual use is often to protect over-committed networks from actually providing the paid for connectivity to all customers. It's often badly implemented and interferes with latency sensitive traffic such as the very games and video for which customers pay high bandwidth prices, And it's often tied to routing manipulation, where the BGP tables of the routers are manipulated to channel traffic through the less expensive but poorly connected routes owned by your local carrier, degrading overall connectivity, and to channel traffic through the traffic shaping servers themselves. The results are chaotic for customers.
Thank you for the date correction. I note from Wikipedia that twm became standard for X11 in 1989. That was long enough ago that I did not personally have a lot of access to systems capable of supporting X back then, and my use of twm was not very successful. It got better later, in my environment at least: this may have been entirely due to local setup issues, not any flaw of the window manager issue itself.
Or use twm. It's built into the basic X source code, is very lightweight, and has been stable for approximately 15 years. I rely on it extensively to avoid distracting eye candy. I'm afraid that the latest Gnome changes have re-inforced this practice. Individual applications from Gnome have their uses, but is there any _one_ tool from Gnome that doesn't have a superior version easily available, without the burdensome Gnome environment? Is there a use for the "nautilus" component except to entirely mishandle detachable media? And is there any use for "evolution", except to ensure that people cannot read their email?
I see why you're posting this as an anonymous corward, because it's typical HFT nonsense. You've not actually addressed the underlying issue, such as occurred on http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-06/electronic-trading-to-blame-for-stock-market-plunge-nyse-s-leibowitz-says.html, where a single significant stock event triggered automatic sales, which devalued a stock, sent other HFT automatic systems into a spiral of selling, with ripple effects spread throughout the HFT systems triggering massive flurries in unrelated companies and markets.
The existence of other types of trading can provide some stabilization against such feedback spirals, but most certainly does not prevent it. Your metaphor is also misleading because it involves second hand clothes, a commodity that most people can live without if the market evaporated tomorrow. A better metaphor would be mortgages, evaluation based partial ownership of actual goods where the trade among them can itself be profitable.
And we all know how safe from ridiculous collapses poorly monitored, high speed and high volume trading was in _that_ market, don't we? The opportunity for "due diligence" simply does not exist in HFT. It's been poorly managed arbitrage, and the feedback cycles are too fast and too dynamic to successfully model. I'm surprised we haven't had repeats of that collapse last year: companies have been _exiting_ HFT because of it.
> We have had 80[0,000] years of direct government manipulation of the economy, and it has almost invariably resulted in bad consequences, throughout the entire period.
I fixed that for you.
The manipulation of local economies by group warehousing of food, building permanent dwellings, and pooling resources to care for children or defend against organized raiders certainly predates writing. It's not clear when money entered the mix, but economies certainly exist in barter based societies. And there is every anthropological and psychological reason to believe that family, tribe, religious, and city leaders manipulated and taxed those economies long before we could develop subtleties like banking and stock markets.
I've very sad to say that this is typical of the FBI Computer Crime Center, and of corporate computer crime. Exposing the vulnerability or logging structures of Paypal's internal services to _anyone_ would be bad for them as a company interested in continuing to gather investor money and avoid negative assessments of their practices. Paypal does not have much interest in prosecuting this: prosecuting a few of Anonymous's members would not stop the rest of Anonymous's members from focusing their attacks against Paypal in a retaliation.
Moreover, the FBI computer crime teams are demonstrably incompetent. Review their own website, at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber. Their big computer "takedowns" are all at least 2 years old and the actual investigations done by other, overseas security forces or local law enforcement. The FBI taking credit for these few cases is insulting to those agencies. When the FBI says "our global partnerships paid off", as they do at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/october/darkmarket_102008, it actually means "someone else did all the work and we're trying to take the credit without telling anyone what we actually failed to do".
I can tell you that the investors who bought the stock _first_ after the company's announcement of better-than-expected annual earnings was published, and started to push up the value of the stock, might indeed make a lot of money. Being the stock trader that handled the trades for them is also a reliable source of revenue. Being able to sell your stock clients a slight advantage in profits, one that you can measure, can easily bring in an unreasonable amount of extra business.
The business is very strange, and I'm afraid vulnerable to changes by the SEC in how such transactions are allowed. It's inherently unstable: the feedback loops are nearly impossible to trace because they're hidden behind the concealed trading algorithms of numerous companies, and it's very easy for a set of very modest delays to feed back and cause a massive positive feedback loop, unless the system is very heavily damped. Right now, it's not very damped, and this sets the possibility of "high frequency trading" become "high frequency oscillation" until it slams against the floor of the stock market assets.
Please excude my crudity: But my (quite old) father had an identity theft problem last year, that made it hard for him to get his heart medications, and I'm still very angry about it. The confusion and delays could have been fatal.
Put him in a cell with someone whose old parents couldn't pay their heating bills because his abuse stripped their credit cards. And hope that someone likes boys with pretty mouths.
This is inevitable with any species that competes. The competing loyalties, and privileges, are balanced day to day. It's actually not as bad right now as it has sometimes been: those of us old enough to remember the strangeness of the Vietnam era, the Nixon era, the McCarthy era, the Reagan era, or even the mad rush of patriotic ferver in place of human rights that occurred after 9/11 can testify to what hiding the evidence leads to.
Have you _read_ Wired? The amount of spin on every page is stunning. It's quite embarrassing when someone leaves a copy in a workplace lobby due to an individual article mentioning their company. It's usually a good indicator that the company is a pure "dotcom" effort and lacks a working product. And their ads are often a guide to what _not_ to buy, due to companies wasting money on glitzy advertising rather than making their tools work.
There is actually a case where involuntary irradiation is acceptable to me, as a "free-thinking" adult. That is tuberculosis examiniations in schools when there's a local epidemic. It can be very helpful to detect low-level lung infections of various sorts. But that is for a directly measurable medical cause, and a targetd population.
Children can be very confused about personal boundaries: what is, and is not, acceptable play and physical interaction, is something adults and more mature children strive to teach them. But because they are treated so gently, they are ideal carriers for drugs or contraband: I certainly know fleeing refugees who successfully hid money and jewels in their children's toys and possessions.
One of the most obvious targets of this kind of "copyright protection", applied to political speech, is Wikileaks. In many cases, the document owners did not consent for those documents to be published, so under the strictest interpretations of copyright law, without the political exceptions applied, they've already had their contribution funds siezed indefinitely by the relevant credit agencies. This would be just another spike in their destruction, much to the pleasure of corporate or government organizations whose secrets are exposed there.
No, law enforcement is demonstrably incompetent in computer crime. Between the turf wars among agencies, the terrible morass of existing law, the foolish concept that they can defeat computer crime by finding "ringleaders". Ringleaders are very transitory, and easily replaced by bored fools with slight technical knowledge who enjoy a challenge.. A few of these fools will have actually learned some tools, and pass them on, and the rest will be ignored as "small fish". You can see examples of this sort of legal mishandling with the Operation Sun Devil raids against Steve Jackson Games, the David LaMacchia wares siite lawsuit, the Kevin Mitnick and Emmanual Goldstein cases, and most of the computer cracking cases that ever see a courtroom.
While the traces may be in the hands of technologically capable like the NSA, I believe that I can safely state there will not be one day in prison for any of these crackers.
Wreak havoc, fail to achieve any of your stated political goals, declare victory, and run away because it's too risky to stay. It's not only crackers who are this wasteful and destructive to innocent people's property: take a look at the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam and Korea for examples in the last 60 years.
How are you going to write the note to explain what the USB stick is about? Worse, how are you going to disguise your editing traces on the Word documents? (A procedure is described at http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=834427.) Or the serial numbers of the USB stick and purchasing records? Cash is useful, but many stores have video monitors in place now.
The "somewhat different file" trick that you describe is an old one, and remains popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong death on the BART.
The January first death of Charles Hill allegedly involved a drunk man who at least threw a knife at a policeman. The officers returned to duty after 3 days. I'm curious what the witnesses at the shooting saw: the limited video of the event shows plenty of people who could see what was going on next to the train, and none of them acting very alarmed when it happened. (If I'm that close to gunfire, leading children, I'd expect to help them get under cover: I'm forced to assume that they could not hear things very well next to the running train.)
The "unarmed, cuffed, face down" death was Oscar Grant, in 2009, and one of the officers was convicted of murder. The officer only spent one year in jail: that's probably a significant source of the anger of the protests. It does make me wonder if the "protesters" are as confused about the easily checked events as you are, or if the officers on the spot a tthe protests now have to deal with much of this.
Conversely, given the murderous history against Oscar Grant, I'd want to coordinate efforts as a protester to stay away from BART police as well.
Really, it's not excessive. If the officer lets the knifeman get closer, that officer's life is in profound jeopardy, and so are other people's. And shooting someone in the leg in a crowded subway station.
The limited video of the January shooting is not very informative, but the visible officers did _not_ start with their guns out, they started surveying the loading area next to the train,. and the visible officer reacted quite quickly to some off-camera event, so their story is credible..
> If you can hold the computer in your hand, security has little to do with the operating system.
That belief is, of course, completely mistaken and is the source of endless exploits inside wireless equipped LAN's and offices that "trust the people they work with". The threshold is deliberately left so low by both engineers and policy managers with this belief, as a matter of personal convenience, that rootkits and exploits run rampant inside "closed" networks and devices that entirely ignore local security as a matter of policy.
The very low security threshold of such access is ludicrous, and should _never_ have been permitted.
It's not "just" for the current hot single music and video artist copyright owners. There's a great deal of content that governments want the infrastructure to control: this especially includes embarrassing content, such as is available at Wikipedia, but also includes data for mining of their own behavior, such as the very documents the Freedom of Information Act is supposed to provide. The photographs of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison with the goofy, smiling, blonde female soldier in front of a man who'd been tortured to death (available at http://antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560) was far more effective in exposing US misbehavior than a thousand tweets or blogs.
Control of information is vital to all organizations, and it has its uses to protect ordinary privacy of day to day operations from bothersome micromanagement by everyone in the world. But the measures in place for "copyright violation" are easily, and without court involvement under current US law, turned against arbitrary political speech. We're seeing precisely such censorship, at far more serious levels, in the Arab world during current political unrest there, we've seen it in the Communist bloc nations for decades, and it's always dangerous to citizens who lack information about what their own leaders are doing.
This sort of thing is precisely why ICANN faces profound pressure, both overseas to control speech, and in the US to control speech and money, to surrender its international status and become an entirely US corporation. Other countries are, justly, concerned about this.
That was only one factor of my analysis. The additional phase lag and expense and necessity of channeling traffic to those bandwidth throttlers are other such factors. The overcommitted factor is why companies pay the money to use it: it's often cheaper to buy a bandwidth throttler than it is to build out bandwidth infrastructure.
To use your own logic: you keep saying that bandiwidth throttling is QoS. Saying it only meanss you like to repeat yourself. It doesn't validate your argument.
From observation and discussion with ISP's about the bnadwidh shaping for commercial traffic: this is not to protect the consumers from that customer's own traffic interfering with bandwidth sensitive applications, but to manage the costs to the ISP's of strenuous bandwidth use in application slike P2P and gaming that can easily saturate the limited resources they've allocated for "fiber optic speeds" and similar claims that only apply to a few packets or simple FTP transfers, not to the artifically shaped traffic _at all_.
There is a great deal that is "inherently bad" about throttling. It adds complexity and phase delay to all network traffic, it often creates new single points of failure to force the traffic through the relevant "traffic shaping" device, and it's quite expensive to implement in hardware and to maintain.
Its actual use is often to protect over-committed networks from actually providing the paid for connectivity to all customers. It's often badly implemented and interferes with latency sensitive traffic such as the very games and video for which customers pay high bandwidth prices, And it's often tied to routing manipulation, where the BGP tables of the routers are manipulated to channel traffic through the less expensive but poorly connected routes owned by your local carrier, degrading overall connectivity, and to channel traffic through the traffic shaping servers themselves. The results are chaotic for customers.
Thank you for the date correction. I note from Wikipedia that twm became standard for X11 in 1989. That was long enough ago that I did not personally have a lot of access to systems capable of supporting X back then, and my use of twm was not very successful. It got better later, in my environment at least: this may have been entirely due to local setup issues, not any flaw of the window manager issue itself.
Or use twm. It's built into the basic X source code, is very lightweight, and has been stable for approximately 15 years. I rely on it extensively to avoid distracting eye candy. I'm afraid that the latest Gnome changes have re-inforced this practice. Individual applications from Gnome have their uses, but is there any _one_ tool from Gnome that doesn't have a superior version easily available, without the burdensome Gnome environment? Is there a use for the "nautilus" component except to entirely mishandle detachable media? And is there any use for "evolution", except to ensure that people cannot read their email?
I see why you're posting this as an anonymous corward, because it's typical HFT nonsense. You've not actually addressed the underlying issue, such as occurred on http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-06/electronic-trading-to-blame-for-stock-market-plunge-nyse-s-leibowitz-says.html, where a single significant stock event triggered automatic sales, which devalued a stock, sent other HFT automatic systems into a spiral of selling, with ripple effects spread throughout the HFT systems triggering massive flurries in unrelated companies and markets.
The existence of other types of trading can provide some stabilization against such feedback spirals, but most certainly does not prevent it. Your metaphor is also misleading because it involves second hand clothes, a commodity that most people can live without if the market evaporated tomorrow. A better metaphor would be mortgages, evaluation based partial ownership of actual goods where the trade among them can itself be profitable.
And we all know how safe from ridiculous collapses poorly monitored, high speed and high volume trading was in _that_ market, don't we? The opportunity for "due diligence" simply does not exist in HFT. It's been poorly managed arbitrage, and the feedback cycles are too fast and too dynamic to successfully model. I'm surprised we haven't had repeats of that collapse last year: companies have been _exiting_ HFT because of it.
> We have had 80[0,000] years of direct government manipulation of the economy, and it has almost invariably resulted in bad consequences, throughout the entire period.
I fixed that for you.
The manipulation of local economies by group warehousing of food, building permanent dwellings, and pooling resources to care for children or defend against organized raiders certainly predates writing. It's not clear when money entered the mix, but economies certainly exist in barter based societies. And there is every anthropological and psychological reason to believe that family, tribe, religious, and city leaders manipulated and taxed those economies long before we could develop subtleties like banking and stock markets.
I've very sad to say that this is typical of the FBI Computer Crime Center, and of corporate computer crime. Exposing the vulnerability or logging structures of Paypal's internal services to _anyone_ would be bad for them as a company interested in continuing to gather investor money and avoid negative assessments of their practices. Paypal does not have much interest in prosecuting this: prosecuting a few of Anonymous's members would not stop the rest of Anonymous's members from focusing their attacks against Paypal in a retaliation.
Moreover, the FBI computer crime teams are demonstrably incompetent. Review their own website, at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber. Their big computer "takedowns" are all at least 2 years old and the actual investigations done by other, overseas security forces or local law enforcement. The FBI taking credit for these few cases is insulting to those agencies. When the FBI says "our global partnerships paid off", as they do at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/october/darkmarket_102008, it actually means "someone else did all the work and we're trying to take the credit without telling anyone what we actually failed to do".
I can tell you that the investors who bought the stock _first_ after the company's announcement of better-than-expected annual earnings was published, and started to push up the value of the stock, might indeed make a lot of money. Being the stock trader that handled the trades for them is also a reliable source of revenue. Being able to sell your stock clients a slight advantage in profits, one that you can measure, can easily bring in an unreasonable amount of extra business.
The business is very strange, and I'm afraid vulnerable to changes by the SEC in how such transactions are allowed. It's inherently unstable: the feedback loops are nearly impossible to trace because they're hidden behind the concealed trading algorithms of numerous companies, and it's very easy for a set of very modest delays to feed back and cause a massive positive feedback loop, unless the system is very heavily damped. Right now, it's not very damped, and this sets the possibility of "high frequency trading" become "high frequency oscillation" until it slams against the floor of the stock market assets.
Please excude my crudity: But my (quite old) father had an identity theft problem last year, that made it hard for him to get his heart medications, and I'm still very angry about it. The confusion and delays could have been fatal.
Put him in a cell with someone whose old parents couldn't pay their heating bills because his abuse stripped their credit cards. And hope that someone likes boys with pretty mouths.
Excellent. We should all read XKCD and change our names, first.
http://xkcd.com/327/
Bringing NCIC to a thundering crash could be delightful in forcing people to actually look at who is in that database, and why.
This is inevitable with any species that competes. The competing loyalties, and privileges, are balanced day to day. It's actually not as bad right now as it has sometimes been: those of us old enough to remember the strangeness of the Vietnam era, the Nixon era, the McCarthy era, the Reagan era, or even the mad rush of patriotic ferver in place of human rights that occurred after 9/11 can testify to what hiding the evidence leads to.
The MacOS kernel is not a BSD license, and has rather different policies.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1456.1.26/APPLE_LICENSE
So no, it is not a BSD. Neither are other core components of the Apple's "Darwin" operating system.
Have you _read_ Wired? The amount of spin on every page is stunning. It's quite embarrassing when someone leaves a copy in a workplace lobby due to an individual article mentioning their company. It's usually a good indicator that the company is a pure "dotcom" effort and lacks a working product. And their ads are often a guide to what _not_ to buy, due to companies wasting money on glitzy advertising rather than making their tools work.
There is actually a case where involuntary irradiation is acceptable to me, as a "free-thinking" adult. That is tuberculosis examiniations in schools when there's a local epidemic. It can be very helpful to detect low-level lung infections of various sorts. But that is for a directly measurable medical cause, and a targetd population.
Children can be very confused about personal boundaries: what is, and is not, acceptable play and physical interaction, is something adults and more mature children strive to teach them. But because they are treated so gently, they are ideal carriers for drugs or contraband: I certainly know fleeing refugees who successfully hid money and jewels in their children's toys and possessions.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
One of the most obvious targets of this kind of "copyright protection", applied to political speech, is Wikileaks. In many cases, the document owners did not consent for those documents to be published, so under the strictest interpretations of copyright law, without the political exceptions applied, they've already had their contribution funds siezed indefinitely by the relevant credit agencies. This would be just another spike in their destruction, much to the pleasure of corporate or government organizations whose secrets are exposed there.
No, law enforcement is demonstrably incompetent in computer crime. Between the turf wars among agencies, the terrible morass of existing law, the foolish concept that they can defeat computer crime by finding "ringleaders". Ringleaders are very transitory, and easily replaced by bored fools with slight technical knowledge who enjoy a challenge.. A few of these fools will have actually learned some tools, and pass them on, and the rest will be ignored as "small fish". You can see examples of this sort of legal mishandling with the Operation Sun Devil raids against Steve Jackson Games, the David LaMacchia wares siite lawsuit, the Kevin Mitnick and Emmanual Goldstein cases, and most of the computer cracking cases that ever see a courtroom.
While the traces may be in the hands of technologically capable like the NSA, I believe that I can safely state there will not be one day in prison for any of these crackers.
Wreak havoc, fail to achieve any of your stated political goals, declare victory, and run away because it's too risky to stay. It's not only crackers who are this wasteful and destructive to innocent people's property: take a look at the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam and Korea for examples in the last 60 years.
How are you going to write the note to explain what the USB stick is about? Worse, how are you going to disguise your editing traces on the Word documents? (A procedure is described at http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=834427.) Or the serial numbers of the USB stick and purchasing records? Cash is useful, but many stores have video monitors in place now.
The "somewhat different file" trick that you describe is an old one, and remains popular.