Another person that should look in the mirror before attacking others.
Google is toying with a complete revamp of the user account system in its browser, clearly borrowing a lot from Chrome OS. In Chrome Canary (Update: and the Chrome dev channel), the following menu has shown up in the window’s title bar:
Emphasis is mine. TFA is about the Chrome Browser being modified, and clearly calls out "browser" in the first sentence after the title. If you only read the linked article in TFA it's the first sentence in the second paragraph.
If you are lost after reading a single paragraph do us all a favor and stay away from the internet, it's really not for people like you.
I don't have a Mac so will need to validate your claim when I get to the office Monday morning. Linux and Windows access to the options is slightly different, but once in the options area they are identical. Not to imply that your claim is impossible, but it does seem odd.
Bleh, it's late... In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change the change it. In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change it.
Wow, you should are either running an ancient version of Firefox or have never looked at the settings (assuming you even run Firefox). The default behavior for Firefox is to just like IE and Chrome, using the:System Settings". In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change the change it. The settings exist and function very well.
Yeah, because I should have to load numerous operating systems because an application lacks features. What an absolutely brilliant use of resources!
I will suggest that you take a good long look in the mirror before attacking people. You have several times in the last day demonstrated that you lack the critical thinking skills of a booger, and are far less charismatic. Stop trolling!
I'm not sure I was clear enough with the problem. IE has proxy settings that work, sure. I launch Firefox and Opera to access Dev and QA environments with different settings than I need for normal browsing. I often need to change this on the fly to access other networks, so can keep multiple settings handy for either Firefox or Opera. Chrome has no settings to change, it uses the same exact settings as IE. If I set Windows to access a proxy there is no separation either, so all of my other connections drop.
A proxy script does not help, because I can't point different browsers to different proxies on the fly. I could always point Firefox at QA and always point Opera to Dev, but I'm screwed when I need to access something else. Working at a good sized ISP I have at least 4 different environments to access regularly.
Google Chrome has become as bad as IE in terms of hidden settings, or settings that are just not there. In Opera and Firefox, I have no issues accessing numerous networks. I can change network settings on the fly and have different settings for different browsers. With Chrome and IE I need a new browser installation everywhere, because Chrome either uses no settings or IE settings. Being able to set proxies and network settings in an add on browser is an important feature for testing.
On the security side, remembering user passwords and stuffing them into either and unencrypted DB or an Encrypted DB that the user has zero control over is not acceptable. Especially when I don't trust either MS or Google as far as I can spit with my privacy. They have abused that trust far too often for me not to notice these things.
And now they are making a big deal about not adding missing and important functionality (especially for those in the tech crowd that want/need it), but those same broken and missing "features" will now be available for multiple users in the same browser installation in the same log-in. Wow, really?
If they were adding Kiosk features, I'd be impressed. Let admins manage browser settings from a global repository for different users in the same browser installation. That's not what they are doing though. This will however add to their ability to target advertisements and raise rates for advertisers. They will know that the wife is using the browser and pepper her with just the right products, while targeting the husband with his.
Back on the security rant, is not the best option to train people not to share an account? Does Chrome not save individual user settings in their home directory already? I don't know honestly, I have Chrome on my work PC because it's part of our base image. I even launch it on occasion to see if it ever improves, and it doesn't. So I don't really use it or care where it stores settings.
Look, if all you are worried about in a browser is loading pages as fast as possible I'm sure Chrome is great. Loading pages faster than people can read them is a very useless ability for people that need to actually read content. I don't spend all day looking at Google Images, or what ever people are doing where this matters. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone that does either. I'm sure the crowd exists, because that's where all the development from Microsoft and Google is focused.
The reason for this to be a Slashdot article is twofold. 1) We get to rant about bad parents (always a good time) and 2) This may harm video game companies bottom lines (and if it's not EA or Zynga we hit a sore spot!).
I'm with you, I think he's a great dad. It's not like he drove his car into a shelling in progress or stuck them in windows with AK47s while troops were hunting down snipers. He went to an area after the fact and let his kids talk to real victims of a real war. In my opinion that's awesome, and I wish my dad was like that.
My dad was the typical "American" dad, like they put on pedestals in TV shows. You know the kind. He drank a lot and watched lots of sports (usually at a bar neglecting his family), collected unemployment as often as possible, and tried to be as much like Archie Bunker as possible. That kind of guy. (For you youngsters, Archie Bunker was a more racist version of Al Bundy. If you don't know Al Bundy, I can't help you. I hate TV shows.
In a perfect world I would agree with you. This is not a perfect world, Slashdot is not a perfect site, members are imperfect, and perfect moderation does not exist.
If you have doubts, go ahead and log in with a real name and try and debate the countering arguments to atheism. I have tried, and it's not worth the effort or Karma hit you will receive. In general, people can not separate theology from the concept that the Universe may require _something_ to exist (call it God, Creator, Maker, Builder, Mover, what ever you like [all chosen from Philosophy text book topics]). A contrary belief challenges their own, and they are happy just the way they are. Happy enough in fact to censor away uncomfortable thoughts.
In a world of Philosophy, that debate works well most of the time. It's an exceptional way of teaching critical thinking and rhetorical skills because it is an emotional topic. Science has not proven that we don't need something to have a Universe, so the debate is still as valid today as it was 2,500 years ago when Plato discussed the topic. That fact does not, nor will it ever, prevent people from censoring comments that harm their beliefs.
No matter how well you frame your thoughts, and no matter how courteous your dialogue is, you will be labelled as "one of those" and moderated as either a troll or flamebait by taking an anti-atheism stance.
The same can be said for any topic where beliefs are challenged, like *nix vs. Windows, Xbox vs PS, DRM, etc...
I don't want to make this a "me" thing, so you can rest assured that I have seen many very well thought out comments be labelled as "troll/flamebait" for no other reason than the opinion not being the "popular" one. When mod points are available I attempt to correct that. At the same time, the numbers favor the censorship so I'm not often successful.
Very few things in the world are absolutes, and this rule certainly has exceptions. That said, the frequency at which comments backing certain opinions are moderated Troll/Flamebait indicates intentional censorship (not necessarily by Slashdot/Dice, but by people on the site with Mod points).
Your opinion on terminology is absolutely idiotic. The term "Drones" covers all variations of drones in a single word, and in a generalized topic like "How Drones Entered the FBI's Spying Toolkit" it is the correct terminology.
Your insistence on using a specific mission acronym is as idiotic as your false claim that a drone which can sit for 24 hours is better than a fixed camera that can sit for as long as needed in police work.
So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally?
So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device? Wholly fuck man, stick with reality! You can't even differentiate between video and still shots. The former being preferred for Police who have no idea when the bad guy will say something to incriminate themselves or commit a crime, the latter being preferred by hobbyists who don't have a 6 month long case that goes in the toilet if there is a mistake or something is missing.
Nobody gives a shit about how you use drones in your personal life for your hobby! Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination). In Police work, humans do it better.
I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones, and the technology will all magically work just like in the movies! Your "In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great." is a complete fabrication! Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points? Oh, you can't because your delusion does not match reality.
To see your delusion up close and personal, look at what you write. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room. In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations. At best you would have the same cameras and same microphones on the drones, but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.
If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better? Answer, it's not cheaper and not better. I know, I know.. if we just spend more tax payer money we will eventually end up with better drones and can get rid of officers. Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.
One day maybe we will have androids that could replace humans in police work. Until that time, there is no cost benefit for using drones in Police work. Further, there is absolutely 1 thing where robotics are better than humans, and only because it keeps humans safe. That one thing is ordinance disposal.
I can't resist on pointing out your failure to read. or Perhaps the explanations of their jobs and examples given were not specific enough? Here ya go then.
A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed. Even better, once planted they can leave the scene. They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed, and even though you may have to pay for the laundry it's possible. Humans can also retrieve those devices when the mission is done. A human can adapt to a situation, fake a heart attack if a distraction is needed, and do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys. Pretty often, you prefer criminals to be alive. And one human can do all of those things without too much difficulty.
A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies. The smallest REAL "spy" drones can't fly in a breeze very well, and can't look like a screw in a wall socket after they land. You could get a different drone to walk around, but a step limits their functionality unless you have a very large drone. A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone. A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover. They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot. Of course you could get fleets of drones which replace several of the things a human can do, but you really are not doing anything better or smarter.
So your claim of "tools" to make humans better is simply delusional bullshit (or sock puppetry).
If FBI agents want a hobby great, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. Quad copters are not that expensive, and off of the tax payers dime they can do what ever they want. Watch porn, go to the bar, fly kites, or fly drones.
On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.
The FBI's job is to investigate federal crimes and arrest suspects of those crimes. Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone? Can they covertly film better with drones? Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things. The only thing they can possibly do with a drone is survey a bust location with a drone, and if a cop does not already know the bust location they are not good cops. The "bad guy would have gotten away if we didn't drone him" are impossible scenarios that don't happen.
With the lack of arrests and prosecution the FBI has shown, I simply distrust the agency. I'm sure there are great agents working there that want to do the right thing, but the executive side shuts down real criminal investigations. The concocted "terrorist" attacks that the agency propagated to get additional funding plays a part in that.
I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military. As a veteran I know first hand that the Military has to deal with situations that are based on 2nd hand or out of date intelligence. This makes for unknown scenarios and a simple surveillance drone can turn the tide of an encounter. Their job is to handle well armed well trained military units of other countries. They are trained to watch out for civilians and try not to harm them, but civilians are the secondary concern of a soldier.
Law enforcement, including the FBI, is not the military. The jobs are totally different, and the expectations are totally different. The Police's job is to protect and serve the public first. If an "unknown gang" has "unknown weapons" then the police have failed miserably at their jobs. That's not a dig on the individual officers, that's a dig at their management who sends them out to do the wrong jobs. Speed traps for example piss off the public and serve primarily to obtain revenue (which is in addition to what we pay for in taxes). It takes police off of patrols and basically turns them into thugs (we all know about the quotas, don't bother trying to bullshit us). If police were visible, patrolling the streets, and actually talking to members of the community, they would have been tipped off about that "unknown gang" long before there were problems.
If a developer uploads a new copy, then it can be moderated and meta-moderated. It should also pass a basic test before being accepted, like making sure the application actually runs.
It's one thing to be a pack rat, it's quite another to save all your trash piled up at home. The former may get you labelled as odd, but the latter can lead you to be institutionalized (after someone takes advantage of you on a reality TV show).
For the Slashdot similarity its not like we can comment on ancient posts. Think about it.. would you find it beneficial to go back to Slashdot Y2K posts and add new comments? Why would you want to keep a 7 year old application that had 2 downloads? Take a picture and reminisce about the good old days if you want, I'm fine with that.
Do you really believe that this is some rogue mad scientist? If so, why is the article not discussing the arrest of said mad scientist and how they are destroying all of their creations?
What's that old saying? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.", and this is the real state of affairs with the US Federal Government. These projects are being funded and approved by that same source. It's right on par with dumping radiation on impoverished cities in the US in the 50s and 60s, giving ethnic minorities syphilis and studying how it corrodes the brain over time, or using depleted uranium munitions all over the middle east (but don't worry, the birth defects are only happening to those brown skilled people).
Just because you don't like the name, doesn't mean it's not useful.
GP did not claim it was "not useful", he claimed it was dishonest. And it is dishonest.
"Cloud" implies a soft puffy safe thing where raindrops fall. It's precursor, "Grid", was a more accurate description, but it didn't have that soft puffy tone.
Looking at the amount of compromises of "Cloud" services anyone looking impartially should realize that it's not soft and puffy. Considering that some mega company now holds all of your applications and data, you can be at best observed and at worst ripped off by those mega companies.
Oh I know. Those companies told you that that would not happen and your data is perfectly safe, and you believe them. Ignore what whistle blowers have shown you, those companies can't lie.
Oh shit, you're one of those!
That statement only implies that you are either delusional or a shill posting anonymously. You don't bother trying to dispute the leaks that demonstrate companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft work directly with 3 letter Government agencies and law enforcement. They are prying into your private data, blocking content they don't like, and selectively handing your data over to those same people.
There's no dishonesty. The "internet of things" term was born in academia and is meant to represent the notion of connecting devices which traditionally aren't, e.g. light switches, water taps or even more complex devices like washing machines.
Wrong on the first part, and the rest is a big ole Straw Man. The "Internet" was funded largely by the Government (DARPA) and designed/built largely by Universities. That has nothing to do with who is using the "Internet" and what their potential motives are. You may as well try and falsely claim that since the Internet was born in Academia and Government there is no possible way that people use it maliciously. You would of course have to ignore about half of the actual use of the Internet including how the US Government has used the technology.
Yeah it's a stupid term, but that's what you get when you have computer science PhDs naming stuff.
A computer sciences PHD did not name the internet of things, any more than a person of the same qualifications named the "Internet". Usually those "names" come from sociologists/psychologists that try to mold society. But of course anyone that studies people like Edward Bernays and those that followed in his footsteps must also be "one of those" right?
TFA uses a generalization therefor my rebuttal required a similar generalization, at least in my opinion. Technically you are correct, however I did not think it relevant to get into the difference between radiation used in therapy and radiation used in detection.
The Weimar Republic was not that different from other countries, but I will give you that it's an extreme example.
Where you are wrong however, is that the US does not control US money, the Federal Reserve controls their money. The Federal reserve is not a Government agency, not accountable to the Government, and does not give a shit about you or your money as much as they care about "their" money.
The Federal reserve has "lost" over a trillion dollars and during the 2008 financial crisis somehow saw fit to give 800 Billion dollars "loaned" to the US government to other countries. This money has not been recovered, and nobody has been sent to jail for fraud. We can't even get an audit of them, despite people in the House and Senate telling us we should be for decades. To the public, they are easily fooled by the name of the cartel and believe this is part of the US Government.
Now you could try to claim that the US Government would back citizens and their property, which they could do to some extent. That may let you keep a house, but your investment into the house would vanish. Other vanishing wealth would be any non-physical assets you or the US government has accumulated.
I really don't see how you believe a US Federal Bankruptcy would be different. We are close to 18Trillion dollars in cash debt and climbing. If you look at real debt (including pensions, social security, etc..) the numbers are closer to 70Trillion in debt and climbing. We have never seen a Government with that massive amount of debt go bankrupt. Our debt is extreme, why would the impact of a bankruptcy not be extreme also? We don't own enough materials to pay for it, period.
I know, most here skim a title or summary and think they know it all, but really you should occasionally read TFA. The issue is not with people sending spam to a spam trap, they are harvesting email addresses and trying to authenticate to them. This is an attempt to compromise accounts, not an attempt to send SPAM mail.
Let me give you a bit of detail, I work with these issues daily.
Long ago in an Internet far far away Spammers learned that they could skim content to find email addresses. Using DNS resolution, they would know what servers should authenticate those addresses. They developed kits that sit and use various attacks to try and break into these accounts. _IF_ they were successful they would use that account to send out SPAM. So your server was listed in a Spam BL, they don't own a mail server.
Resource wise, this was not a stupid thing for them to do. A few servers trying to break into your mail accounts yielded lots of accounts for them to send spam from, and their crackbots were not impacted by SPAM BLs or reputation.
Security people got wise to this, and we now use various methods of blocking brute force password attacks. They are easy to detect, as long as you are nimble enough to look for them. So hackers started breaking into hosts to install their brute force kits, which added another layer for people to detect. This allowed spanning attacks over a span of hosts.
Still detectable, but we are not at a massive amount of log monitoring to find at least two layers of abstraction.
The latest craze is to harvest email addresses and run a static password against those accounts. Different hosts/botnets use different passwords, so it's a reverse methodology. Again these are detectable, but another layer of abstraction makes it a bit harder to look, for. The log queries I run to find the better ones are extremely complex and span a massive amount of logs. Using Sumologic or Splunk makes detecting these types of attack much faster. It would be possible to find without, but I would not want to manage that much Perl code or wait days for queries to run. Been there done that.
Now, with the background laid out we can discuss TFA. As soon as an IP with a known spamtrap address tries to connect we can immediately banish the IP. No cross referencing is needed, spanning no longer matters, I know that that IP address is a bad guy without any other information.
That is the level of stupidity being discussed, and yes it is very very stupid on their part. I believe this is not really "stupid" but an unintentional consequence of overly automating. A big "whoops!" if you will, which is not necessarily "stupidity".
Fair points, but not relevant to what I stated. The Marines and Army can both have the M1 Abrams tank without sharing Command and Control infrastructure, targeting systems, transponders, etc... The C&C infrastructure is what people tend to claim should be shared and wasteful to duplicate without understanding how important the separation of powers is.
Slashdot Mirror
Another person that should look in the mirror before attacking others.
Google is toying with a complete revamp of the user account system in its browser, clearly borrowing a lot from Chrome OS. In Chrome Canary (Update: and the Chrome dev channel), the following menu has shown up in the window’s title bar:
Emphasis is mine. TFA is about the Chrome Browser being modified, and clearly calls out "browser" in the first sentence after the title. If you only read the linked article in TFA it's the first sentence in the second paragraph.
If you are lost after reading a single paragraph do us all a favor and stay away from the internet, it's really not for people like you.
I don't have a Mac so will need to validate your claim when I get to the office Monday morning. Linux and Windows access to the options is slightly different, but once in the options area they are identical. Not to imply that your claim is impossible, but it does seem odd.
Bleh, it's late...
In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change the change it.
In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change it.
Wow, you should are either running an ancient version of Firefox or have never looked at the settings (assuming you even run Firefox). The default behavior for Firefox is to just like IE and Chrome, using the :System Settings". In order to change the behavior you have to know where to change the change it. The settings exist and function very well.
Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Network
Yeah, because I should have to load numerous operating systems because an application lacks features. What an absolutely brilliant use of resources!
I will suggest that you take a good long look in the mirror before attacking people. You have several times in the last day demonstrated that you lack the critical thinking skills of a booger, and are far less charismatic. Stop trolling!
I'm not sure I was clear enough with the problem. IE has proxy settings that work, sure. I launch Firefox and Opera to access Dev and QA environments with different settings than I need for normal browsing. I often need to change this on the fly to access other networks, so can keep multiple settings handy for either Firefox or Opera. Chrome has no settings to change, it uses the same exact settings as IE. If I set Windows to access a proxy there is no separation either, so all of my other connections drop.
A proxy script does not help, because I can't point different browsers to different proxies on the fly. I could always point Firefox at QA and always point Opera to Dev, but I'm screwed when I need to access something else. Working at a good sized ISP I have at least 4 different environments to access regularly.
Google Chrome has become as bad as IE in terms of hidden settings, or settings that are just not there. In Opera and Firefox, I have no issues accessing numerous networks. I can change network settings on the fly and have different settings for different browsers. With Chrome and IE I need a new browser installation everywhere, because Chrome either uses no settings or IE settings. Being able to set proxies and network settings in an add on browser is an important feature for testing.
On the security side, remembering user passwords and stuffing them into either and unencrypted DB or an Encrypted DB that the user has zero control over is not acceptable. Especially when I don't trust either MS or Google as far as I can spit with my privacy. They have abused that trust far too often for me not to notice these things.
And now they are making a big deal about not adding missing and important functionality (especially for those in the tech crowd that want/need it), but those same broken and missing "features" will now be available for multiple users in the same browser installation in the same log-in. Wow, really?
If they were adding Kiosk features, I'd be impressed. Let admins manage browser settings from a global repository for different users in the same browser installation. That's not what they are doing though. This will however add to their ability to target advertisements and raise rates for advertisers. They will know that the wife is using the browser and pepper her with just the right products, while targeting the husband with his.
Back on the security rant, is not the best option to train people not to share an account? Does Chrome not save individual user settings in their home directory already? I don't know honestly, I have Chrome on my work PC because it's part of our base image. I even launch it on occasion to see if it ever improves, and it doesn't. So I don't really use it or care where it stores settings.
Look, if all you are worried about in a browser is loading pages as fast as possible I'm sure Chrome is great. Loading pages faster than people can read them is a very useless ability for people that need to actually read content. I don't spend all day looking at Google Images, or what ever people are doing where this matters. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone that does either. I'm sure the crowd exists, because that's where all the development from Microsoft and Google is focused.
I think that's what the meta-mod system is for, but I have not seen metamods in a while. My fault I'm sure for not looking.
The reason for this to be a Slashdot article is twofold. 1) We get to rant about bad parents (always a good time) and 2) This may harm video game companies bottom lines (and if it's not EA or Zynga we hit a sore spot!).
I'm with you, I think he's a great dad. It's not like he drove his car into a shelling in progress or stuck them in windows with AK47s while troops were hunting down snipers. He went to an area after the fact and let his kids talk to real victims of a real war. In my opinion that's awesome, and I wish my dad was like that.
My dad was the typical "American" dad, like they put on pedestals in TV shows. You know the kind. He drank a lot and watched lots of sports (usually at a bar neglecting his family), collected unemployment as often as possible, and tried to be as much like Archie Bunker as possible. That kind of guy. (For you youngsters, Archie Bunker was a more racist version of Al Bundy. If you don't know Al Bundy, I can't help you. I hate TV shows.
There is also a dependency on who has mod points and reads a particular post, which is at least as significant as the expressed opinion.
In a perfect world I would agree with you. This is not a perfect world, Slashdot is not a perfect site, members are imperfect, and perfect moderation does not exist.
If you have doubts, go ahead and log in with a real name and try and debate the countering arguments to atheism. I have tried, and it's not worth the effort or Karma hit you will receive. In general, people can not separate theology from the concept that the Universe may require _something_ to exist (call it God, Creator, Maker, Builder, Mover, what ever you like [all chosen from Philosophy text book topics]). A contrary belief challenges their own, and they are happy just the way they are. Happy enough in fact to censor away uncomfortable thoughts.
In a world of Philosophy, that debate works well most of the time. It's an exceptional way of teaching critical thinking and rhetorical skills because it is an emotional topic. Science has not proven that we don't need something to have a Universe, so the debate is still as valid today as it was 2,500 years ago when Plato discussed the topic. That fact does not, nor will it ever, prevent people from censoring comments that harm their beliefs.
No matter how well you frame your thoughts, and no matter how courteous your dialogue is, you will be labelled as "one of those" and moderated as either a troll or flamebait by taking an anti-atheism stance.
The same can be said for any topic where beliefs are challenged, like *nix vs. Windows, Xbox vs PS, DRM, etc...
I don't want to make this a "me" thing, so you can rest assured that I have seen many very well thought out comments be labelled as "troll/flamebait" for no other reason than the opinion not being the "popular" one. When mod points are available I attempt to correct that. At the same time, the numbers favor the censorship so I'm not often successful.
Very few things in the world are absolutes, and this rule certainly has exceptions. That said, the frequency at which comments backing certain opinions are moderated Troll/Flamebait indicates intentional censorship (not necessarily by Slashdot/Dice, but by people on the site with Mod points).
Your opinion on terminology is absolutely idiotic. The term "Drones" covers all variations of drones in a single word, and in a generalized topic like "How Drones Entered the FBI's Spying Toolkit" it is the correct terminology.
Your insistence on using a specific mission acronym is as idiotic as your false claim that a drone which can sit for 24 hours is better than a fixed camera that can sit for as long as needed in police work.
So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally?
So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device? Wholly fuck man, stick with reality! You can't even differentiate between video and still shots. The former being preferred for Police who have no idea when the bad guy will say something to incriminate themselves or commit a crime, the latter being preferred by hobbyists who don't have a 6 month long case that goes in the toilet if there is a mistake or something is missing.
Nobody gives a shit about how you use drones in your personal life for your hobby! Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination). In Police work, humans do it better.
More reason for the "rm -rf *". Trying to moderate a giant pile of shit after the fact is simply a bad idea.
Pro Religion, Pro Microsoft, Anti GNU, Anti Linux, Pro DRM. Posts unless extremely well explained will get modded down to troll.
Even with a careful explanation most of those will be censored^Wmoderated as trolls.
I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones, and the technology will all magically work just like in the movies! Your "In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great." is a complete fabrication! Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points? Oh, you can't because your delusion does not match reality.
To see your delusion up close and personal, look at what you write. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room. In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations. At best you would have the same cameras and same microphones on the drones, but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.
If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better? Answer, it's not cheaper and not better. I know, I know.. if we just spend more tax payer money we will eventually end up with better drones and can get rid of officers. Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.
One day maybe we will have androids that could replace humans in police work. Until that time, there is no cost benefit for using drones in Police work. Further, there is absolutely 1 thing where robotics are better than humans, and only because it keeps humans safe. That one thing is ordinance disposal.
I can't resist on pointing out your failure to read. or Perhaps the explanations of their jobs and examples given were not specific enough? Here ya go then.
A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed. Even better, once planted they can leave the scene. They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed, and even though you may have to pay for the laundry it's possible. Humans can also retrieve those devices when the mission is done. A human can adapt to a situation, fake a heart attack if a distraction is needed, and do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys. Pretty often, you prefer criminals to be alive. And one human can do all of those things without too much difficulty.
A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies. The smallest REAL "spy" drones can't fly in a breeze very well, and can't look like a screw in a wall socket after they land. You could get a different drone to walk around, but a step limits their functionality unless you have a very large drone. A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone. A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover. They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot. Of course you could get fleets of drones which replace several of the things a human can do, but you really are not doing anything better or smarter.
So your claim of "tools" to make humans better is simply delusional bullshit (or sock puppetry).
I got the memo and laughed at it, and of course cry a bit every time someone believes the bullshit.
If FBI agents want a hobby great, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. Quad copters are not that expensive, and off of the tax payers dime they can do what ever they want. Watch porn, go to the bar, fly kites, or fly drones.
On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.
The FBI's job is to investigate federal crimes and arrest suspects of those crimes. Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone? Can they covertly film better with drones? Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things. The only thing they can possibly do with a drone is survey a bust location with a drone, and if a cop does not already know the bust location they are not good cops. The "bad guy would have gotten away if we didn't drone him" are impossible scenarios that don't happen.
With the lack of arrests and prosecution the FBI has shown, I simply distrust the agency. I'm sure there are great agents working there that want to do the right thing, but the executive side shuts down real criminal investigations. The concocted "terrorist" attacks that the agency propagated to get additional funding plays a part in that.
I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military. As a veteran I know first hand that the Military has to deal with situations that are based on 2nd hand or out of date intelligence. This makes for unknown scenarios and a simple surveillance drone can turn the tide of an encounter. Their job is to handle well armed well trained military units of other countries. They are trained to watch out for civilians and try not to harm them, but civilians are the secondary concern of a soldier.
Law enforcement, including the FBI, is not the military. The jobs are totally different, and the expectations are totally different. The Police's job is to protect and serve the public first. If an "unknown gang" has "unknown weapons" then the police have failed miserably at their jobs. That's not a dig on the individual officers, that's a dig at their management who sends them out to do the wrong jobs. Speed traps for example piss off the public and serve primarily to obtain revenue (which is in addition to what we pay for in taxes). It takes police off of patrols and basically turns them into thugs (we all know about the quotas, don't bother trying to bullshit us). If police were visible, patrolling the streets, and actually talking to members of the community, they would have been tipped off about that "unknown gang" long before there were problems.
rm -rf *
If a developer uploads a new copy, then it can be moderated and meta-moderated. It should also pass a basic test before being accepted, like making sure the application actually runs.
It's one thing to be a pack rat, it's quite another to save all your trash piled up at home. The former may get you labelled as odd, but the latter can lead you to be institutionalized (after someone takes advantage of you on a reality TV show).
For the Slashdot similarity its not like we can comment on ancient posts. Think about it.. would you find it beneficial to go back to Slashdot Y2K posts and add new comments? Why would you want to keep a 7 year old application that had 2 downloads? Take a picture and reminisce about the good old days if you want, I'm fine with that.
Do you really believe that this is some rogue mad scientist? If so, why is the article not discussing the arrest of said mad scientist and how they are destroying all of their creations?
What's that old saying? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.", and this is the real state of affairs with the US Federal Government. These projects are being funded and approved by that same source. It's right on par with dumping radiation on impoverished cities in the US in the 50s and 60s, giving ethnic minorities syphilis and studying how it corrodes the brain over time, or using depleted uranium munitions all over the middle east (but don't worry, the birth defects are only happening to those brown skilled people).
Just because you don't like the name, doesn't mean it's not useful.
GP did not claim it was "not useful", he claimed it was dishonest. And it is dishonest.
"Cloud" implies a soft puffy safe thing where raindrops fall. It's precursor, "Grid", was a more accurate description, but it didn't have that soft puffy tone.
Looking at the amount of compromises of "Cloud" services anyone looking impartially should realize that it's not soft and puffy. Considering that some mega company now holds all of your applications and data, you can be at best observed and at worst ripped off by those mega companies.
Oh I know. Those companies told you that that would not happen and your data is perfectly safe, and you believe them. Ignore what whistle blowers have shown you, those companies can't lie.
Oh shit, you're one of those!
That statement only implies that you are either delusional or a shill posting anonymously. You don't bother trying to dispute the leaks that demonstrate companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft work directly with 3 letter Government agencies and law enforcement. They are prying into your private data, blocking content they don't like, and selectively handing your data over to those same people.
There's no dishonesty. The "internet of things" term was born in academia and is meant to represent the notion of connecting devices which traditionally aren't, e.g. light switches, water taps or even more complex devices like washing machines.
Wrong on the first part, and the rest is a big ole Straw Man. The "Internet" was funded largely by the Government (DARPA) and designed/built largely by Universities. That has nothing to do with who is using the "Internet" and what their potential motives are. You may as well try and falsely claim that since the Internet was born in Academia and Government there is no possible way that people use it maliciously. You would of course have to ignore about half of the actual use of the Internet including how the US Government has used the technology.
Yeah it's a stupid term, but that's what you get when you have computer science PhDs naming stuff.
A computer sciences PHD did not name the internet of things, any more than a person of the same qualifications named the "Internet". Usually those "names" come from sociologists/psychologists that try to mold society. But of course anyone that studies people like Edward Bernays and those that followed in his footsteps must also be "one of those" right?
TFA uses a generalization therefor my rebuttal required a similar generalization, at least in my opinion. Technically you are correct, however I did not think it relevant to get into the difference between radiation used in therapy and radiation used in detection.
The Weimar Republic was not that different from other countries, but I will give you that it's an extreme example.
Where you are wrong however, is that the US does not control US money, the Federal Reserve controls their money. The Federal reserve is not a Government agency, not accountable to the Government, and does not give a shit about you or your money as much as they care about "their" money.
The Federal reserve has "lost" over a trillion dollars and during the 2008 financial crisis somehow saw fit to give 800 Billion dollars "loaned" to the US government to other countries. This money has not been recovered, and nobody has been sent to jail for fraud. We can't even get an audit of them, despite people in the House and Senate telling us we should be for decades. To the public, they are easily fooled by the name of the cartel and believe this is part of the US Government.
Now you could try to claim that the US Government would back citizens and their property, which they could do to some extent. That may let you keep a house, but your investment into the house would vanish. Other vanishing wealth would be any non-physical assets you or the US government has accumulated.
I really don't see how you believe a US Federal Bankruptcy would be different. We are close to 18Trillion dollars in cash debt and climbing. If you look at real debt (including pensions, social security, etc..) the numbers are closer to 70Trillion in debt and climbing. We have never seen a Government with that massive amount of debt go bankrupt. Our debt is extreme, why would the impact of a bankruptcy not be extreme also? We don't own enough materials to pay for it, period.
I know, most here skim a title or summary and think they know it all, but really you should occasionally read TFA. The issue is not with people sending spam to a spam trap, they are harvesting email addresses and trying to authenticate to them. This is an attempt to compromise accounts, not an attempt to send SPAM mail.
Let me give you a bit of detail, I work with these issues daily.
Long ago in an Internet far far away Spammers learned that they could skim content to find email addresses. Using DNS resolution, they would know what servers should authenticate those addresses. They developed kits that sit and use various attacks to try and break into these accounts. _IF_ they were successful they would use that account to send out SPAM. So your server was listed in a Spam BL, they don't own a mail server.
Resource wise, this was not a stupid thing for them to do. A few servers trying to break into your mail accounts yielded lots of accounts for them to send spam from, and their crackbots were not impacted by SPAM BLs or reputation.
Security people got wise to this, and we now use various methods of blocking brute force password attacks. They are easy to detect, as long as you are nimble enough to look for them. So hackers started breaking into hosts to install their brute force kits, which added another layer for people to detect. This allowed spanning attacks over a span of hosts.
Still detectable, but we are not at a massive amount of log monitoring to find at least two layers of abstraction.
The latest craze is to harvest email addresses and run a static password against those accounts. Different hosts/botnets use different passwords, so it's a reverse methodology. Again these are detectable, but another layer of abstraction makes it a bit harder to look, for. The log queries I run to find the better ones are extremely complex and span a massive amount of logs. Using Sumologic or Splunk makes detecting these types of attack much faster. It would be possible to find without, but I would not want to manage that much Perl code or wait days for queries to run. Been there done that.
Now, with the background laid out we can discuss TFA. As soon as an IP with a known spamtrap address tries to connect we can immediately banish the IP. No cross referencing is needed, spanning no longer matters, I know that that IP address is a bad guy without any other information.
That is the level of stupidity being discussed, and yes it is very very stupid on their part. I believe this is not really "stupid" but an unintentional consequence of overly automating. A big "whoops!" if you will, which is not necessarily "stupidity".
Fair points, but not relevant to what I stated. The Marines and Army can both have the M1 Abrams tank without sharing Command and Control infrastructure, targeting systems, transponders, etc... The C&C infrastructure is what people tend to claim should be shared and wasteful to duplicate without understanding how important the separation of powers is.