Ah. I left it to the summary, and all I did was embarrass myself. Thanks for the clarification!
I wonder how well his comments about "The more widely separated the telescopes, the more finely detailed the observations can be" scale. It would stand to reason then that an array of these telescopes launched into orbit around the sun could conceivably be used with great results as well. The problem would be communication, but so long as the need wasn't real-time from the array, it wouldn't be an issue. The data could be buffered at each of the earth side client sites, then streamed in a similar fashion. He doesn't mention numbers of telescopes being important, but I'm guessing those would have to scale as well.
"He added that 'the diameter of the Earth is 12,750 km and the two most widely separated telescopes in our experiment were 12,304 km apart.'"
So, when measuring the distance between each of the telescopes, did he do it through the planet (diameter), or did he measure the distance across the surface of the planet (circumference)? Cause that kind makes a huge difference, and really screws up any valid comparison between the two distances.
~Sticky /You know, kind of like comparing English furlongs and Australian wallabies. Just way too different.
Cause the infrastructure that supports cameras is more expensive than the existing (and planned to be expanded) wireless infrastructure. Just a few costs associated with cameras:
1. Running power to the pole
2. Running communications to the pole (can't be overcome by wireless, because bandwidth is needed for all those images)
3. Construction costs (putting a pole in the ground costs WHAT?!?!)
4. Union Labor (more of an issue in the States)
5. Cost of Camera, pole, box, power supply, wiring, maintenance
Now, let's compare that to using cellphones:
1. Tapping cell phone area database to make queries about how many cars are in an area. (This is EASY)
2.... Uh beer to celebrate bringing traffic data without incurring a huge capital cost?
If the information exists (and it does), it is much easier to simply use the information at hand rather than develop a camera network. Unless you sell cameras of course, then I guess it would be a good idea to you.
So, in conclusion, they are doing exactly what you wanted them to do... "But why use a simple solution when there's a perfectly good complicated solution to try?". The complicated solution is the cameras.
I'm sure I have a little apologizing too. The other part of my job is convincing people that there is actually a problem. Nobody wants to look at it, and the margin on manufacturing and other process control environments is so small that designing security never even makes the specs.
There is alarmism. Without a doubt. Very likely overreaction, and a certain bending of the truth as well. And it is all in lockstep with the apathy, lack of attention, and blind faith that are coming from the other side of the issue. I hate, I hate, I hate that the industry is resorting to these tactics, but every time I walk into a control system environment I am confronted by the sheer lack of concern(though I will admit that calling me was a good first step). Every time I speak with a process control engineer, I am flabbergasted by the sheer depth of ignorance about security for their systems, even when they design the systems to withstand temperature extremes, and voltage spikes, and unfortunate accidents. The fact is, we learned the security lesson the hard way back in the early days of the 'Net, and I don't want to have to repeat it all. An entire industry was born to secure applications and systems that should have been secured by default. It serves, to me, as a reminder that we do not learn from our mistakes.
The problem about cases of actual malicious intent is that there is so little security, that it is nearly impossible to prove whether or not an incident was an accident, an act of God, or an attack. Very little auditing, almost no logging, not much that could throw up the flag and say "You have just been attacked". Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant. Google it. Yes, there is money in it. Why is there? Because nobody is doing it, and it needs to be done.
Once upon our time, we built our power plants, our water treatment facilities, our refineries, and our manufacturing centers in massive complexes. Acres upon acres of infrastructure that supports the modern way of life, placed in close proximity to reduce the cost of powering, maintaining and supplying these facilities. Then the hurricanes, and the tornadoes, and the floods, and the earthquakes came and revealed our hubris. It was not smart to place these expensive essentials, these foundations of the modern world, in close proximity to each other. And so we distributed our infrastructure, ensuring to the closest economical and efficient degree, that we could continue operations in the face of unforeseen natural events. Years ago, we gave birth to the Internet and began to tie our computer systems together, essentially placing them in a virtual floodplain, a virtual hurricane zone, a virtual tornado alley, and our hubris was once again revealed.
What else could have happened over a 4.5 Billion year journey to slow this burst down by 4.5 minutes? Forgive me, but when two cars start at the same spot and report equal velocity over a certain distance, I don't question the fundamental laws of physics, I look for a small bump in the road. Maybe a construct from string theory is the bump, but hows about we work with what we got, then move on to creating a new physics?
You develop SCADA software? Fantastic!! I have you to thank for having a job!! Because of developers like you, I can press cancel on a login box and gain access to a PCS system, FTP using a 10 year old vulnerability to gain access to/etc/passwd and shadow, and use misconfigured "view only" web servers to inject fake data into trending databases. Keep up the good work!
It isn't completely script kiddie yet, but give it some time. Most manuals for SCADA systems are out on the 'net, the only thing bad guys are missing is the actual SCADA software to test the automated tools. Considering the fact that the most popular protocol for automation systems, OPC, is based on DCOM makes it vulnerable to script kiddie hits. I actually had a vendor rep recommend that I turn my DCOM security down to "unauthenticated" in order to get his product to work.
Let's see here too... I've personally seen a NEW PCS system that uses ETHERNET and TCP/IP, and has unauth'ed telnet by default. All these little controllers run all the control functions, what happens when I decide to connect to these controls and start running processes that consume some serious processing power? Or maybe I reduce the priority of critical control operations in the kernel, making the entire process lose determinism?
Who in God's name said anything about WiFi? WiFi is actually difficult, I can use a modified HAM rig to pipe data into a modem to view process control data from these Microwave towers. Unencrypted, Unauthenticated Point Data, and with a sufficiently powerful transmitter I can override that signal and send false data. We already have enough problems with controllers malfunctioning and sending incorrect data (Taum Sauk Dam), what happens when I can tell the controller to send bad info when I want it to?
Special Protection Systems right? Yes, there is a little bit of intelligence there to prevent catastrophic failure in the event of communications error, but OPERATORS can still take almost any measure they deem necessary to continue operation. Why don't I just pretend to be an operator? Considering the controllers will do almost anything they are told, that is a big problem. Or better yet, why don't I just activate those SPS's, over and over again? A safe state is typically OFF! What if your manufacturing center went down at 4:20 every day, how much would that hurt the bottom line?
Get a grip, get a clue. You have a PROBLEM.
~Sticky
Define isolated. Seriously, define it. What does "isolated" actually mean? Is it firewalled? Is it, to use a manager term, "air-gapped"? Does it mean dual homing your OPC servers between corp and process? Do I actually need a firewall, or can I simply configure the switch for host based? Does view only constitute a possible vulnerability? How do I securely configure a system to ONLY allow view only?
You pulled a PHB there, using a simple word to describe a complex engineered process of securing a process control system. Don't do it again.
~Sticky
Dude, you'd better not be checking Slashdot from your control system operator workstation! Last time I was in a power plant control room, some idiot had Yahoo messenger on his operator workstation.
The computers that run our incredibly dangerous nuclear power plants should never be able to access the Internet!
Let's review the facts. This associate producer of NBC has just stirred up about the most angry hornets nest in the world, hackers. If I were her, I'd be changing all the passwords on all my social networking sites, like NOW. I've seen what a simple google search would turn up on her.
First some assumptions:
1. Your company directory is automated (you know, "Please spell out the name of the person you wish to call on the keypad...")
2. It's on a seperate number than your front door. (This is what you should be doing...)
First off, change the telephone number that the company directory is on and keep it unlisted. Ensure employees know that it is not a public number. It's obviously been compromised somewhere along the line, and these -hats will continue to abuse it. Second, add a disclaimer to the message that is used on it. Something like "The company directory may only be used for authorized business, the following activities are prohibited: soliciting, debt collection, yadda yadda." Check with legal on what you should say. Third, awareness is more than hanging up. Teach your employees to get name, company, contact info, and have them write down how much time they spent handling it (probably a minute or so). This way, you can take it up the chain as a time waster and justify FIXING it. Better yet, make it a web application...:). Additionally, you now know what companies you can prosecute once you've done #1 and #2.
Lastly, get yourself a better lawyer. This joker sounds like he should be chasing ambulances. "We have no options, there's no such thing as a Do Not Call list for companies." There is ALWAYS a legal recourse, but it requires you to be attentive, up front, and document everything. Any responsible lawyer working for a corporation knows that, so get this slacker off your payroll.
You'll probably have problems with the -hats who keep records, and you may need to change your extension system. Once they are in, they will be in for a while.
Normally, I'd be ridiculously happy about this sort of development. The speed increase, the reliability increase, and the lower power consumption easily make drives like this very attractive. However, as a Computer Engineer I have to wonder if our computers and operating systems can REALLY handle a drive with a 48 MByte/sec transfer rate.
Have situations with a drive this fast ever been extensively tested in a lab to determine problems that may develop in the operating system? What happens when processes that were designed and coded with a slow hard drive in mind come in contact with ridiculously fast flash drives? Hard drive latency has been a fact of life for so long, what happens when it's no longer an issue?
begin politicallyIncorrect
What, this thing can't toss a midget? What a rip!!
end politicallyIncorrect
And what's the point of building a fridge, a robot, a beer, or a couch if they aren't running linux, they aren't ethernet enabled, and they don't have a Web 2.0 interface?!?!
[IANAL]
I'm sure, at some point, you will address my issue rather than simply attacking the system in place. Just to rephrase, I'm saying that there are protections in place to limit the influence of things(videotapes, public opinion, documents, news broadcasts, etc) not admitted as evidence.
A jury deliberation attempts to be like a scientific experiment. A proper experiment is designed to be isolated from the outside world to the greatest degree possible. By limiting outside contact, a scientific experiment is afforded a reasonable assumption of validity. The same is with a jury. Jurors are provided with evidence and with testimony, and are segregated. Following proper rules, jurors are instructed to deliberate in the nearest possible vacuum. Now, the courtroom being what it is, they are also assaulted with legal tricks, and with drama, and with emotion. And the world being what it is, they are assaulted with other influences as well. The same is true with an experiment, despite our best efforts. Insulation only works to a point, contaminates influence the final product, and scientists can fudge results. Which is why experiments are designed to be independently verifiable, to provide a defense mechanism. A trial has the same defense, the appeal process.
Now, to your arguments.
A. Yes, there is a filter, I don't see the problem. The truly wise and competent and smart should be testifying, not deciding. Period. 12 people, nobody exceptional. They aren't supposed to be outside the norm so that their decision, their experimental result, is closest to non-biased as possible.
B. Video is the truth?? Video LIES just like witnesses, and judges, and lawyers, and police officers, and defendants can. Movies, television, internet, all these things lie, that's the one guarantee. And if it doesn't lie, it only shows A truth, which is the same damn thing. Video shows what the people directly behind the camera want it to show, which is why one person believes a video is pornographic, and another is artistic. As for the "anybody smart enough" part, I don't even see how that is relevant, so you can explain why when you reply.
The very fact that the internet is unfiltered and unaccountable makes me happy, because in the vast majority of cases it will cannot be a deciding factor. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be a valid reason to bring someone to court, but not a material piece of evidence. Only with proper investigation could either side bring it into the court, without investigation it might end up wrong and damaging to the side that brought it.
What is the immediate nature of accountability?
People don't like mobs, people like the comfortability of consensus. And 12 people in a room are a consensus, directed by evidence, testimony, and instructed by the law.
This is a good point, but I believe misguided. The judge would simply state to the jurors that they must consider the evidence presented, and nothing else. There are oaths taken as a juror, and this is the reason why (in the United States) 12 people decide (typically unanimous, but once again exceptions...) the fate of the accused. There would be no reason to go against their oaths unless they were biased against the defendant in some way, which means they replace them with an alternate as a matter of course. Any juror that repeatedly states "But YouTube sayed dey did it!!!" is gonna be summarily dismissed and likely charged with Obstruction or something like that.
My problem is from the other end. What is to stop a person who actually did commit a crime from submitting a video to YouTube and modifying it so it LOOKED to be OBVIOUSLY photoshopped? Rather than making a decision to convict on a fake tape, what if they decide to acquit because the tape was found to be a "fake"? AND THIS COULD BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AS WELL, making it all the more believable. This would require no "YouTube sayed dey did it!!!", only a vote of not guilty. Jurors seeing the tape could easily believe defense arguments of lazy policemen, coerced confessions, legal trickery, and the almighty phrase "Reasonable Doubt". The fact is, it is MUCH easier to get someone acquitted of a crime than it is to falsely accuse someone.
Of course, this in the case that there isn't OTHER compelling evidence against the defendant. Lawyers, what do you think??
Pre-installed Linux from a reputable vendor of computer systems would require a support plan, warranty, additional software, plus allowances for upgrades later down the line that will be compatible with the Linux OS. It's not the fact that it's better, it's the fact that we can get support from our vendor if the fit hits the shan.
What are the programs on YOUR Dell/Compaq/HP/Whatever that you use daily? Were these installed by the factory, guaranteed to work with your hardware and equipped with a 1-800 number? Do you get free upgrades (to a point) for these pieces? The cast majority of us are Linux geeks, but the main reason the normal Joe and Jane Schmoe don't use Linux is that they don't have the support.
As for companies, they REQUIRE that some form of vendor support be in place, which is why RedHat, and Sun, and HP are all doing so well. They provide companies with machines and the companies are guaranteed a certain level of service in return, which makes it cost effective for the company. (That is, if it breaks or the software dies, they send it back to the vendor).
In conclusion, it's not just about being able to install Linux and go, it's about being competitive and supportive. It's about bringing Linux to the desktop/laptop in a way that allows for the same service and support levels that are already given for Windows based machines.
No, Dell won't do Linux in house. It would be a waste of money. The idea is to pay someone to design a computer system, pay someone to identify and create the default OS and OS configuration, pay someone to identify what software should be part of this endeavor, pay someone to put in all the nifty dell graphics and popups, and then pay someone to create a default install image (with some minor changes per drive to allow licensing, unique identifying, parchesi, etc).
Big companies do jack on their own these days, its (almost) all hired out consultants, and for good reason. Consultants are competitive, when you put an order out for bid a consultant will shave every dollar they can off the price to make sure they get the contract. This is why the open source model is so fantastic, the money in providing Open Source Services instead of Open Source Products is incredible, and it even allows for innovation (though if it's gonna be distributed, it has to come with the source). Constant, competitive, powerful innovation drives Open Source to be the BEST OF BREED, and that's who companies should hire.
The Widget of Sticky
A.K.A, The Adhesive Thingamajigger
Before we do this, you love me don't you???? Couldn't resist. I'm so getting flamed for this one...
Dell needs to continue listening to its customers, and give me Linux on my Dell (dude). The first step for this should be a Linux hardware forum where they discuss possible chipsets and identify possible incompatibilities before they occur. An open forum by such a large manufacturer may also put some pressure on chip and card manufacturers to open source their drivers.
In other news, a mass recall has been determined for Diebold Voting Machines with similiar 'bugs'. Just before the "Are you sure you meant XXX for President?" dialog, the Diebold machine flashes a screen for 1/18th of a second that declares "All your votes are belong to us. Vote Republican!!".
Then it spits out 50 cents in quarters...
The Sticky Widget
So, what are we going to do with the billions of dollars in infrastructure that supports the space shuttle, not to mention the space shuttle itself? That kind of stuff can't be sold on Ebay you know....
They made a presentation of another demo, then made one of GMAIL. Both use almost exactly the same language, it just looks like some marketer did a find-replace on Northwind. Both were made in 2 weeks for a protoype, and 2 months for a full version.
Being a computer engineer, I'm quite familiar with Moore's law, it's the reason I continue to find open jobs. Since when did Moore say "doubles every two years"?!? It is "doubles every 18 months" you incompetent journalist!! </flame>
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how well his comments about "The more widely separated the telescopes, the more finely detailed the observations can be" scale. It would stand to reason then that an array of these telescopes launched into orbit around the sun could conceivably be used with great results as well. The problem would be communication, but so long as the need wasn't real-time from the array, it wouldn't be an issue. The data could be buffered at each of the earth side client sites, then streamed in a similar fashion. He doesn't mention numbers of telescopes being important, but I'm guessing those would have to scale as well.
~Sticky
So, when measuring the distance between each of the telescopes, did he do it through the planet (diameter), or did he measure the distance across the surface of the planet (circumference)? Cause that kind makes a huge difference, and really screws up any valid comparison between the two distances.
~Sticky
/You know, kind of like comparing English furlongs and Australian wallabies. Just way too different.
1. Running power to the pole
2. Running communications to the pole (can't be overcome by wireless, because bandwidth is needed for all those images)
3. Construction costs (putting a pole in the ground costs WHAT?!?!)
4. Union Labor (more of an issue in the States)
5. Cost of Camera, pole, box, power supply, wiring, maintenance
Now, let's compare that to using cellphones:
1. Tapping cell phone area database to make queries about how many cars are in an area. (This is EASY) ... Uh beer to celebrate bringing traffic data without incurring a huge capital cost?
2.
If the information exists (and it does), it is much easier to simply use the information at hand rather than develop a camera network. Unless you sell cameras of course, then I guess it would be a good idea to you. So, in conclusion, they are doing exactly what you wanted them to do... "But why use a simple solution when there's a perfectly good complicated solution to try?". The complicated solution is the cameras.
~Sticky
/ Do you sell cameras?
And its Kobe from center court, "Girl's Heart Regenerates" With Artificial Assist ~Sticky /Boooo!
There is alarmism. Without a doubt. Very likely overreaction, and a certain bending of the truth as well. And it is all in lockstep with the apathy, lack of attention, and blind faith that are coming from the other side of the issue. I hate, I hate, I hate that the industry is resorting to these tactics, but every time I walk into a control system environment I am confronted by the sheer lack of concern(though I will admit that calling me was a good first step). Every time I speak with a process control engineer, I am flabbergasted by the sheer depth of ignorance about security for their systems, even when they design the systems to withstand temperature extremes, and voltage spikes, and unfortunate accidents. The fact is, we learned the security lesson the hard way back in the early days of the 'Net, and I don't want to have to repeat it all. An entire industry was born to secure applications and systems that should have been secured by default. It serves, to me, as a reminder that we do not learn from our mistakes.
The problem about cases of actual malicious intent is that there is so little security, that it is nearly impossible to prove whether or not an incident was an accident, an act of God, or an attack. Very little auditing, almost no logging, not much that could throw up the flag and say "You have just been attacked". Brown's Ferry Nuclear Power Plant. Google it. Yes, there is money in it. Why is there? Because nobody is doing it, and it needs to be done.
Once upon our time, we built our power plants, our water treatment facilities, our refineries, and our manufacturing centers in massive complexes. Acres upon acres of infrastructure that supports the modern way of life, placed in close proximity to reduce the cost of powering, maintaining and supplying these facilities. Then the hurricanes, and the tornadoes, and the floods, and the earthquakes came and revealed our hubris. It was not smart to place these expensive essentials, these foundations of the modern world, in close proximity to each other. And so we distributed our infrastructure, ensuring to the closest economical and efficient degree, that we could continue operations in the face of unforeseen natural events. Years ago, we gave birth to the Internet and began to tie our computer systems together, essentially placing them in a virtual floodplain, a virtual hurricane zone, a virtual tornado alley, and our hubris was once again revealed.
We do not learn from our mistakes.
~Sticky
But who am I to argue with quantum mechanics.
~Sticky
It isn't completely script kiddie yet, but give it some time. Most manuals for SCADA systems are out on the 'net, the only thing bad guys are missing is the actual SCADA software to test the automated tools. Considering the fact that the most popular protocol for automation systems, OPC, is based on DCOM makes it vulnerable to script kiddie hits. I actually had a vendor rep recommend that I turn my DCOM security down to "unauthenticated" in order to get his product to work.
Let's see here too... I've personally seen a NEW PCS system that uses ETHERNET and TCP/IP, and has unauth'ed telnet by default. All these little controllers run all the control functions, what happens when I decide to connect to these controls and start running processes that consume some serious processing power? Or maybe I reduce the priority of critical control operations in the kernel, making the entire process lose determinism?
Who in God's name said anything about WiFi? WiFi is actually difficult, I can use a modified HAM rig to pipe data into a modem to view process control data from these Microwave towers. Unencrypted, Unauthenticated Point Data, and with a sufficiently powerful transmitter I can override that signal and send false data. We already have enough problems with controllers malfunctioning and sending incorrect data (Taum Sauk Dam), what happens when I can tell the controller to send bad info when I want it to?
Special Protection Systems right? Yes, there is a little bit of intelligence there to prevent catastrophic failure in the event of communications error, but OPERATORS can still take almost any measure they deem necessary to continue operation. Why don't I just pretend to be an operator? Considering the controllers will do almost anything they are told, that is a big problem. Or better yet, why don't I just activate those SPS's, over and over again? A safe state is typically OFF! What if your manufacturing center went down at 4:20 every day, how much would that hurt the bottom line?
Get a grip, get a clue. You have a PROBLEM. ~Sticky
Define isolated. Seriously, define it. What does "isolated" actually mean? Is it firewalled? Is it, to use a manager term, "air-gapped"? Does it mean dual homing your OPC servers between corp and process? Do I actually need a firewall, or can I simply configure the switch for host based? Does view only constitute a possible vulnerability? How do I securely configure a system to ONLY allow view only? You pulled a PHB there, using a simple word to describe a complex engineered process of securing a process control system. Don't do it again. ~Sticky
The computers that run our incredibly dangerous nuclear power plants should never be able to access the Internet!
Let's review the facts. This associate producer of NBC has just stirred up about the most angry hornets nest in the world, hackers. If I were her, I'd be changing all the passwords on all my social networking sites, like NOW. I've seen what a simple google search would turn up on her.
1. Your company directory is automated (you know, "Please spell out the name of the person you wish to call on the keypad...")
2. It's on a seperate number than your front door. (This is what you should be doing...)
First off, change the telephone number that the company directory is on and keep it unlisted. Ensure employees know that it is not a public number. It's obviously been compromised somewhere along the line, and these -hats will continue to abuse it. Second, add a disclaimer to the message that is used on it. Something like "The company directory may only be used for authorized business, the following activities are prohibited: soliciting, debt collection, yadda yadda." Check with legal on what you should say. Third, awareness is more than hanging up. Teach your employees to get name, company, contact info, and have them write down how much time they spent handling it (probably a minute or so). This way, you can take it up the chain as a time waster and justify FIXING it. Better yet, make it a web application... :). Additionally, you now know what companies you can prosecute once you've done #1 and #2.
Lastly, get yourself a better lawyer. This joker sounds like he should be chasing ambulances. "We have no options, there's no such thing as a Do Not Call list for companies." There is ALWAYS a legal recourse, but it requires you to be attentive, up front, and document everything. Any responsible lawyer working for a corporation knows that, so get this slacker off your payroll.
You'll probably have problems with the -hats who keep records, and you may need to change your extension system. Once they are in, they will be in for a while.
StickyWidget AKA, Gizmo Glue
Have situations with a drive this fast ever been extensively tested in a lab to determine problems that may develop in the operating system? What happens when processes that were designed and coded with a slow hard drive in mind come in contact with ridiculously fast flash drives? Hard drive latency has been a fact of life for so long, what happens when it's no longer an issue?
Sticky "JustAskingTheQuestion" Widget
What, this thing can't toss a midget? What a rip!!
end politicallyIncorrect
And what's the point of building a fridge, a robot, a beer, or a couch if they aren't running linux, they aren't ethernet enabled, and they don't have a Web 2.0 interface?!?!
The Widget of Sticky
AKA, The Adhesive Gadget
I'm sure, at some point, you will address my issue rather than simply attacking the system in place. Just to rephrase, I'm saying that there are protections in place to limit the influence of things(videotapes, public opinion, documents, news broadcasts, etc) not admitted as evidence.
A jury deliberation attempts to be like a scientific experiment. A proper experiment is designed to be isolated from the outside world to the greatest degree possible. By limiting outside contact, a scientific experiment is afforded a reasonable assumption of validity. The same is with a jury. Jurors are provided with evidence and with testimony, and are segregated. Following proper rules, jurors are instructed to deliberate in the nearest possible vacuum. Now, the courtroom being what it is, they are also assaulted with legal tricks, and with drama, and with emotion. And the world being what it is, they are assaulted with other influences as well. The same is true with an experiment, despite our best efforts. Insulation only works to a point, contaminates influence the final product, and scientists can fudge results. Which is why experiments are designed to be independently verifiable, to provide a defense mechanism. A trial has the same defense, the appeal process.
Now, to your arguments.
A. Yes, there is a filter, I don't see the problem. The truly wise and competent and smart should be testifying, not deciding. Period. 12 people, nobody exceptional. They aren't supposed to be outside the norm so that their decision, their experimental result, is closest to non-biased as possible.
B. Video is the truth?? Video LIES just like witnesses, and judges, and lawyers, and police officers, and defendants can. Movies, television, internet, all these things lie, that's the one guarantee. And if it doesn't lie, it only shows A truth, which is the same damn thing. Video shows what the people directly behind the camera want it to show, which is why one person believes a video is pornographic, and another is artistic. As for the "anybody smart enough" part, I don't even see how that is relevant, so you can explain why when you reply.
The very fact that the internet is unfiltered and unaccountable makes me happy, because in the vast majority of cases it will cannot be a deciding factor. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be a valid reason to bring someone to court, but not a material piece of evidence. Only with proper investigation could either side bring it into the court, without investigation it might end up wrong and damaging to the side that brought it.
What is the immediate nature of accountability?
People don't like mobs, people like the comfortability of consensus. And 12 people in a room are a consensus, directed by evidence, testimony, and instructed by the law.
The Widget of Sticky.
AKA, Glue ThingAMaJig
This is a good point, but I believe misguided. The judge would simply state to the jurors that they must consider the evidence presented, and nothing else. There are oaths taken as a juror, and this is the reason why (in the United States) 12 people decide (typically unanimous, but once again exceptions...) the fate of the accused. There would be no reason to go against their oaths unless they were biased against the defendant in some way, which means they replace them with an alternate as a matter of course. Any juror that repeatedly states "But YouTube sayed dey did it!!!" is gonna be summarily dismissed and likely charged with Obstruction or something like that.
My problem is from the other end. What is to stop a person who actually did commit a crime from submitting a video to YouTube and modifying it so it LOOKED to be OBVIOUSLY photoshopped? Rather than making a decision to convict on a fake tape, what if they decide to acquit because the tape was found to be a "fake"? AND THIS COULD BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AS WELL, making it all the more believable. This would require no "YouTube sayed dey did it!!!", only a vote of not guilty. Jurors seeing the tape could easily believe defense arguments of lazy policemen, coerced confessions, legal trickery, and the almighty phrase "Reasonable Doubt". The fact is, it is MUCH easier to get someone acquitted of a crime than it is to falsely accuse someone.
Of course, this in the case that there isn't OTHER compelling evidence against the defendant. Lawyers, what do you think??
The Widget of Sticky
AKA: Tenacious Gizmo
The Widget of Sticky
What are the programs on YOUR Dell/Compaq/HP/Whatever that you use daily? Were these installed by the factory, guaranteed to work with your hardware and equipped with a 1-800 number? Do you get free upgrades (to a point) for these pieces? The cast majority of us are Linux geeks, but the main reason the normal Joe and Jane Schmoe don't use Linux is that they don't have the support.
As for companies, they REQUIRE that some form of vendor support be in place, which is why RedHat, and Sun, and HP are all doing so well. They provide companies with machines and the companies are guaranteed a certain level of service in return, which makes it cost effective for the company. (That is, if it breaks or the software dies, they send it back to the vendor).
In conclusion, it's not just about being able to install Linux and go, it's about being competitive and supportive. It's about bringing Linux to the desktop/laptop in a way that allows for the same service and support levels that are already given for Windows based machines.
The Widget of Sticky
A.K.A. Mr. Gooey Contraption
Big companies do jack on their own these days, its (almost) all hired out consultants, and for good reason. Consultants are competitive, when you put an order out for bid a consultant will shave every dollar they can off the price to make sure they get the contract. This is why the open source model is so fantastic, the money in providing Open Source Services instead of Open Source Products is incredible, and it even allows for innovation (though if it's gonna be distributed, it has to come with the source). Constant, competitive, powerful innovation drives Open Source to be the BEST OF BREED, and that's who companies should hire.
The Widget of Sticky
A.K.A, The Adhesive Thingamajigger
Before we do this, you love me don't you???? Couldn't resist. I'm so getting flamed for this one...
Dell needs to continue listening to its customers, and give me Linux on my Dell (dude). The first step for this should be a Linux hardware forum where they discuss possible chipsets and identify possible incompatibilities before they occur. An open forum by such a large manufacturer may also put some pressure on chip and card manufacturers to open source their drivers.
The Widget of Sticky
The StarTrek Days will come when I can finally transfer auxiliary power to the shields in my Jetta....
All subs can dive to crushing depths. The problem is getting back up.
In other news, a mass recall has been determined for Diebold Voting Machines with similiar 'bugs'. Just before the "Are you sure you meant XXX for President?" dialog, the Diebold machine flashes a screen for 1/18th of a second that declares "All your votes are belong to us. Vote Republican!!". Then it spits out 50 cents in quarters... The Sticky Widget
So, what are we going to do with the billions of dollars in infrastructure that supports the space shuttle, not to mention the space shuttle itself? That kind of stuff can't be sold on Ebay you know....
http://www.morfik.com/media/The_Making_of_Northwin d_Unplugged.pdf
They made a presentation of another demo, then made one of GMAIL. Both use almost exactly the same language, it just looks like some marketer did a find-replace on Northwind. Both were made in 2 weeks for a protoype, and 2 months for a full version.
Fishy.
StickyWidget
Being a computer engineer, I'm quite familiar with Moore's law, it's the reason I continue to find open jobs. Since when did Moore say "doubles every two years"?!? It is "doubles every 18 months" you incompetent journalist!!
</flame>
The Widget