I agree it probably is a proof of concept with limited applications at the moment, but how about something like Hadoop, that was designed to work on a distributed set of cpus and discs.
With an aging population it seems terribly interesting that it could be possible to go after people wirelessly.
This is the important part, not now, but in the future. This is just a demonstration of what is possible, and how the mistakes that are being made now may effect all of us in the future.
As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die. It won't be a hearing aid, though; it will really be a computer. So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.
We need to change the way that the industry and the regulators think about these kind of devices. Security by obscurity is just not good enough.
As patients (now and in the future) we should require/demand that all of the software in these devices is open source or they won't get certified for use as implants. Many people on this site have said something along the lines of "If I were designing these devices then I would use [xyz] to make them secure". The important point is that geeks like us aren't designing these devices, and for the companies that are designing these devices security isn't a priority.
Good security is expensive, both in terms of employing extra staff with the relevant expertise, and in terms of developer time to implement and test it. Unless peer reviewed security is required by their customers or government regulations, then it is just not enough of a priority to justify the additional cost.
The worst result from this kind of research would be that our politicos jump at a sound bite solution and make it illegal to own or design a device that could intefere with implanted medical devices. Preventing the good guys from testing their own devices, while making it easier for the bad guys by allowing manufacturers to get away with poor security.
The best result from this kind of research would be that we make peer reviewed security and open source code part of the requirements for certification of implanted devices. But that won't happen unless we keep pushing to make it happen.
I did the same. I used to listen Last.fm a lot, and I discovered several artists that I hadn't heard of before, and bought quite a few albums as a result.
I had a monthly subscription, and I thought it was well worth the money. I wasn't that interested in the big name bands, what was interesting were the less well known artists from their huge database of music from around the world. But like you, I cancelled my subscription when they cut the "my loved tracks".
It was nice while it lasted, but.. the world moves on.
If you have full access you get to see the list of restricted sites. This allows for people to make sure that sites are not added to the list for political reasons.
That is absolutely essential.
First thing that occurred to me when I read the summary who controls the list.
.... apps dumping hidden config files willy-nilly in my home is annoying as hell.
Not only is there no standard, but the convention of using hidden directories makes things worse. Add to that the fact that many apps mix data (cache) and configuration (passwords) under the same hidden directory and it makes backing up the users settings a non trivial task.
Amazon don't store their inventory in the trucks. The trucks just collect the items that have been sold and deliver them to the consumer.
Amazon use large warehouses to store the inventory, large warehouses to store the data centers that coordinate the inventory, deliveries and purchases, and UPS use large warehouses to park the trucks when they aren't out delivering. All those warehouses will have nice big flat roofs - as opposed to the various sized odd shaped small roofs of all those individual brick and mortar stores.
I agree it would be good if the brick and mortar stores put up solar panels. But I don't agree that brick and mortar stores would somehow be better at providing solar power than online stores would. It would be better if the individual brick and mortar stores AND the large warehouses used by the online stores all used their roof space to generate some form of solar power.
Thank you. This is the first real evidence I've seen that the leaked documents do actually contain names.
Still not sure if the leak was good or bad. I'm working my way through the online documents myself, but this gives me a clue as to what kind of things to look for.
A lot of the problems are due to the
ambiguity in the way the various laws apply,
and a lack of clarity in the way these are explained to the public, the security guards and police officers.
This is not the security guards fault; they were probably instructed to 'watch out for suspicious activity',
without a clear definition of what constitutes 'suspicious activity'.
One way to solve this might be for the local authorities to make a public statement to the effect that
"Photography is legal and accepted behavior in public places; unless there are clearly displayed signs
that prohibit it".
The important part of that is "the clearly displayed signs" bit.
If the owners of a building or transport system don't want people to take photographs, then they must
display signs that indicate that photography is prohibited.
Without clearly displayed signs stating that photography is prohibited,
then threatening arrest for taking photographs would automatically be considered as harassment and unlawful arrest.
We might see an outbreak of 'photography prohibited' signs almost everywhere,
but at least it makes it clear where we stand.
However, I suspect that there are many places where the owners or authorities are happy for their security personnel to
discourage photography on an individual basis, but would balk at the idea of stating their policy in public.
Requiring them to state the ban publicly, with permanent signs, may make them re-asses their policy.
"Is the potential threat really worth the cost of putting up all the signs, damaging our public relations and intimidating our passengers / visitors ?"
Once it is clear what places do prohibit photography, then if we (the public) are unhappy with the prohibition
or feel that it is unnecessary at that location, we can petition the owners or responsible authorities to remove the ban (small print in the law could require that the sign clearly state who is responsible for the ban).
We do the same for parking in big cities.
The penalty in London for parking your car where you are not allowed to is being wheel clamped or towed away.
But, in order for this to be legal, there must be clearly displayed signs that state that parking is prohibited
at that location and what the penalty is.
At least this might help to clear up the current confusion.
if you deny Google the right to encrypt on your network, Google still has the right to deny you any or all of their services
Which results in all the students at the school being taught to use Bing for internet searches... perhaps not the best result for Google, or for the students.
The problem with Google Street View is that they are _taking_ new pictures and making them public.
Yep, that was the reason people gave for objecting to Google StreetView, that Google were deliberately setting out to take new pictures and publish them in a system that made it easy to find images of a specific street.
My question is... now that I know that Google will include 3rd party geo-tagged images in StreetView.
What are the privacy implications of me (as a private citizen) deliberately setting out to take lots of pictures of a street, geo-tagging them and upload them to Flickr,
with the intention of making them available for Google to publish in StreetView ?
If enough people contribute geo-tagged images (and many mobile phones do this by default now) over time the density of 3rd party images in some areas could provide more coverage than the original StreetView images.
We would end up with complete coverage with high quality un-blurred images, and no single identifiable entity to which the privacy laws would apply to.
Would the privacy laws need to be re-written to force Google to blur 3rd party contributed images as well ?
If so, would the blurred copy would be a derivative of the original image, making Google complicit in copyright violation ?
(many images on Flicker are published under versions of the Creative Commons license that don't allow derivatives)
If Google takes the images themselves they have to blur all the faces and number plates, but if they include user contributed images of the same scene they don't need to blur them ?
So.. if I (as a private citizen) take pictures of a street and upload them to Flickr with geo-tags, Google will use them un-blurred.
What if I (as a private citizen) mounted a camera on a car and took LOTS of pictures and uploaded them to Flickr with geo-tags, Google would be able to use them un-blurred ?
Is this a crowd sourced way to un-blur Google StreetView one street at a time....
I think what this (different) school is doing is fantastic, and I applaud their efforts and achievements.
However... checkout what happens at 4:37 in the video.
Yes, different school, and the students are in school at the time, but.... I'm not sure I like the idea of teaching kids to accept this level of surveillance as 'normal'.
but it certainly should bother any halfway attractive person on this planet who plans to take a flight.
In my experience healthy attractive people aren't that worried about people looking at them. It is the rest of us, those of us who are too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall who don't want people to see us naked. All of us who wear clothes, makeup, dentures, wigs and a whole range of fashion accessories in an effort to change how we look.
Deploying this type of technology removes our control over how we look and gives the state (or private security personnel) the ability to examine us stripped naked.
There are already people suggesting we should use this technology on public transport in our cites. See BBC news and BBC news.
Based on what has happend with CCTV, once this level of technology starts to be used at selected 'high risk' locations it won't be long before it becomes common place, deployed all over our cities, in banks, train stations, hotels and department stores.
How will this affect everyone who wears some form of prosthetic to change how they look or disguise something damaged or missing.
The CEO who wears a wig to hide a bald patch will know that the lads in the security office can see it too. The woman who has had a mastectomy will have to endure the security guards at the city train station seeing her scar.
And then the bad guys will figure out a way to hide explosives inside the body.... so we move up a level to full body xray scanners. Everyone who wears dentures or wigs, everyone who uses anything to change their appearance, all will be scanned, examined and scrutinised.
VLC 0.8.7 (Fedora 8) and VLC 1.0.2 (Fedora 11) both seem to be able to cope with the low bitrate Yahoo links.
I selected OpenNetworkStream from the File/Media menu and pasted the URL in the http stream box and VLC managed to decode the real stream URLs from the Yahoo links ok. On the higher bitrate links both versions of VLC hang after a few frames.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're God every time you run a simulation?
Yes. To the entities inside the simulation you are, to all intents and purposes, their God.
That pretty much fits the job title of "Omnipotent entity that caused and controls everything", aka God.
I agree it probably is a proof of concept with limited applications at the moment, but how about something like Hadoop, that was designed to work on a distributed set of cpus and discs.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/08/16/2343249/dremel-based-project-accepted-as-apache-incubator
Religious people tend to have more babies
The statistics seem to indicate that might not be true.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
The Ghostery plugin http://www.ghostery.com/ does that, and more.
With an aging population it seems terribly interesting that it could be possible to go after people wirelessly.
This is the important part, not now, but in the future. This is just a demonstration of what is possible, and how the mistakes that are being made now may effect all of us in the future.
From a recent talk by Cory Doctorow, http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html
As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die. It won't be a hearing aid, though; it will really be a computer. So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.
We need to change the way that the industry and the regulators think about these kind of devices. Security by obscurity is just not good enough.
As patients (now and in the future) we should require/demand that all of the software in these devices is open source or they won't get certified for use as implants.
Many people on this site have said something along the lines of "If I were designing these devices then I would use [xyz] to make them secure".
The important point is that geeks like us aren't designing these devices, and for the companies that are designing these devices security isn't a priority.
Good security is expensive, both in terms of employing extra staff with the relevant expertise, and in terms of developer time to implement and test it. Unless peer reviewed security is required by their customers or government regulations, then it is just not enough of a priority to justify the additional cost.
The worst result from this kind of research would be that our politicos jump at a sound bite solution and make it illegal to own or design a device that could intefere with implanted medical devices. Preventing the good guys from testing their own devices, while making it easier for the bad guys by allowing manufacturers to get away with poor security.
The best result from this kind of research would be that we make peer reviewed security and open source code part of the requirements for certification of implanted devices. But that won't happen unless we keep pushing to make it happen.
I did the same. I used to listen Last.fm a lot, and I discovered several artists that I hadn't heard of before, and bought quite a few albums as a result.
I had a monthly subscription, and I thought it was well worth the money. I wasn't that interested in the big name bands, what was interesting were the less well known artists from their huge database of music from around the world. But like you, I cancelled my subscription when they cut the "my loved tracks".
It was nice while it lasted, but .. the world moves on.
If you have full access you get to see the list of restricted sites. This allows for people to make sure that sites are not added to the list for political reasons.
That is absolutely essential.
First thing that occurred to me when I read the summary who controls the list .
Agree with you apart from the '.' in '.config'.
Not only is there no standard, but the convention of using hidden directories makes things worse.
Add to that the fact that many apps mix data (cache) and configuration (passwords) under the same hidden directory and it makes backing up the users settings a non trivial task.
Amazon don't store their inventory in the trucks. The trucks just collect the items that have been sold and deliver them to the consumer.
Amazon use large warehouses to store the inventory, large warehouses to store the data centers that coordinate the inventory, deliveries and purchases, and UPS use large warehouses to park the trucks when they aren't out delivering. All those warehouses will have nice big flat roofs - as opposed to the various sized odd shaped small roofs of all those individual brick and mortar stores.
I agree it would be good if the brick and mortar stores put up solar panels. But I don't agree that brick and mortar stores would somehow be better at providing solar power than online stores would. It would be better if the individual brick and mortar stores AND the large warehouses used by the online stores all used their roof space to generate some form of solar power.
Thank you. This is the first real evidence I've seen that the leaked documents do actually contain names.
Still not sure if the leak was good or bad. I'm working my way through the online documents myself, but this gives me a clue as to what kind of things to look for.
What vendors ?
If you meant distributors (of Linux) ... there are 100's of them, and only a few that would be subject to French law.
A lot of the problems are due to the ambiguity in the way the various laws apply, and a lack of clarity in the way these are explained to the public, the security guards and police officers. This is not the security guards fault; they were probably instructed to 'watch out for suspicious activity', without a clear definition of what constitutes 'suspicious activity'.
One way to solve this might be for the local authorities to make a public statement to the effect that "Photography is legal and accepted behavior in public places; unless there are clearly displayed signs that prohibit it".
The important part of that is "the clearly displayed signs" bit. If the owners of a building or transport system don't want people to take photographs, then they must display signs that indicate that photography is prohibited. Without clearly displayed signs stating that photography is prohibited, then threatening arrest for taking photographs would automatically be considered as harassment and unlawful arrest.
We might see an outbreak of 'photography prohibited' signs almost everywhere, but at least it makes it clear where we stand. However, I suspect that there are many places where the owners or authorities are happy for their security personnel to discourage photography on an individual basis, but would balk at the idea of stating their policy in public. Requiring them to state the ban publicly, with permanent signs, may make them re-asses their policy.
"Is the potential threat really worth the cost of putting up all the signs, damaging our public relations and intimidating our passengers / visitors ?"
Once it is clear what places do prohibit photography, then if we (the public) are unhappy with the prohibition or feel that it is unnecessary at that location, we can petition the owners or responsible authorities to remove the ban (small print in the law could require that the sign clearly state who is responsible for the ban).
We do the same for parking in big cities. The penalty in London for parking your car where you are not allowed to is being wheel clamped or towed away. But, in order for this to be legal, there must be clearly displayed signs that state that parking is prohibited at that location and what the penalty is.
At least this might help to clear up the current confusion.
Which results in all the students at the school being taught to use Bing for internet searches ... perhaps not the best result for Google, or for the students.
Yep, that was the reason people gave for objecting to Google StreetView, that Google were deliberately setting out to take new pictures and publish them in a system that made it easy to find images of a specific street.
My question is ... now that I know that Google will include 3rd party geo-tagged images in StreetView.
What are the privacy implications of me (as a private citizen) deliberately setting out to take lots of pictures of a street, geo-tagging them and upload them to Flickr,
with the intention of making them available for Google to publish in StreetView ?
If enough people contribute geo-tagged images (and many mobile phones do this by default now) over time the density of 3rd party images in some areas could provide more coverage than the original StreetView images. We would end up with complete coverage with high quality un-blurred images, and no single identifiable entity to which the privacy laws would apply to.
Would the privacy laws need to be re-written to force Google to blur 3rd party contributed images as well ? If so, would the blurred copy would be a derivative of the original image, making Google complicit in copyright violation ? (many images on Flicker are published under versions of the Creative Commons license that don't allow derivatives)
Ok, how does this change the privacy issues ?
If Google takes the images themselves they have to blur all the faces and number plates, but if they include user contributed images of the same scene they don't need to blur them ?
So .. if I (as a private citizen) take pictures of a street and upload them to Flickr with geo-tags, Google will use them un-blurred.
What if I (as a private citizen) mounted a camera on a car and took LOTS of pictures and uploaded them to Flickr with geo-tags, Google would be able to use them un-blurred ?
Is this a crowd sourced way to un-blur Google StreetView one street at a time ....
I think what this (different) school is doing is fantastic, and I applaud their efforts and achievements. However ... checkout what happens at 4:37 in the video.
How Google Saved A School
Yes, different school, and the students are in school at the time, but .... I'm not sure I like the idea of teaching kids to accept this level of surveillance as 'normal'.
My apologies.
According to wikipedia the CPU clock speed for an Athlon 64 X2 5400+ is 2800 MHz not 4GHz.
I agree with you ... right up to this part :
In my experience healthy attractive people aren't that worried about people looking at them. It is the rest of us, those of us who are too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall who don't want people to see us naked. All of us who wear clothes, makeup, dentures, wigs and a whole range of fashion accessories in an effort to change how we look.
A lot of money goes into making us feel uncomfortable with what we actually look like. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6JvK0W60I.
Deploying this type of technology removes our control over how we look and gives the state (or private security personnel) the ability to examine us
stripped naked.
There are already people suggesting we should use this technology on public transport in our cites. See BBC news and BBC news.
Based on what has happend with CCTV, once this level of technology starts to be used at selected 'high risk' locations it won't be long before it becomes common place, deployed all over our cities, in banks, train stations, hotels and department stores.
How will this affect everyone who wears some form of prosthetic to change how they look or disguise something damaged or missing.
The CEO who wears a wig to hide a bald patch will know that the lads in the security office can see it too. The woman who has had a mastectomy will have to endure the security guards at the city train station seeing her scar.
And then the bad guys will figure out a way to hide explosives inside the body .... so we move up a level to full body xray scanners. Everyone who wears dentures or wigs, everyone who uses anything to change their appearance, all will be scanned, examined and scrutinised.
Are we ready for that ?
VLC 0.8.7 (Fedora 8) and VLC 1.0.2 (Fedora 11) both seem to be able to cope with the low bitrate Yahoo links.
I selected OpenNetworkStream from the File/Media menu and pasted the URL in the http stream box and VLC managed to decode the real stream URLs from the Yahoo links ok.
On the higher bitrate links both versions of VLC hang after a few frames.
Is anyone else having problems with these feeds on Linux with VLC ?
The 200k/s Windows Media stream seems to work ok, but the higher resolution streams just display a few frames of video and then lock up.
The Real Media stream only provides audio, but it seems to be at about 60 seconds ahead of the Windows Media streams.
We are working on it IVOA.
How would /. raise the money to pay for their web servers ?
If it was a subscription only service would you pay to read it ?