You're a moron...Call me a bleeding liberal if you will, but the police are more afraid of lawsuits than they are of armed individual resistance.
You're a moron liberal. If the cops were more afraid of law suits they'd knock on the door, hand the guy a slip of paper and politely escort him down town. Not much chance of lawsuit there. Now sneaking up to someones house, shooting their dogs, busting down the door and charging in with machine guns? THAT has potential lawsuit written all over it from so many directions I wouldn't even know where to begin. Your reasoning defies logic.
The latter they have training and material to deal with.
They certainly have the equipment but I'd argue strongly that they don't have the training. That's the biggest part of the problem. Their equipment FAR outstrips their training. The primary job of a police entity should be to de-escalate situations not escalate them. They get all those shiny toys and suddenly they start acting like stormtroopers rather than police.
Granted, their tactics were heavy-handed, but it sounds like all they did was execute a search warrant, based on the (correct) information that the IP address was assigned to that customer. The fact that he decided to extend 'his' IP address to other people does not negate the information LE had.
And how effort, time and money would it have cost for LE to actually do just a little bit of actual investigation (you know, their jobs) and discover that the guys router had unsecure WiFi? One hell of a lot less of all three than a swat raid on an innocent man.
Nowhere does it say anyone at that house was ever arrested or charged with anything.
No but they frigging broke his doors down, invaded his house with machine guns pointed at him and took all his stuff. But gee, they didn't arrest him. The most moronic part of these completely unjustified police state raids is that they raise a situation that could easily be handled in safe, peaceful manner into a highly confrontational dangerous situation where there is real danger to life of both LE and innocent civilians. That's some fine police work there.
Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"?
If you actually read the article you'll find that it's clearly stated that the initial information is from a Google brief and therefore may be biased. And then you'll find in the update to the article that the GSA, who grants the certifications in question, clearly states that Google's claims in the brief are true. That may be just a slightly less biased source supporting Google's claims in the brief.
Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.
No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).
That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?
If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.
So far as I've seen, this is true. Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet
Steve, is that you? Naaa, can't be. It's been a while since you've been reported as throwing chairs so even if you're on your meds no way the response would be that calm.
It's as far as you've seen because you've got Microsoft logos painted on your glasses. Read the article. The GSA stated that Google's offering was FISMA certified since July 2010. Since they're the ones who do the certifications I'd say that makes a pretty strong case as to who's lying here (it's Microsoft, in case you're still too dense to see it).
Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet
Even if they didn't their claim that Google's wasn't was a blatant lie. And a clear indication that they don't even understand how FISMA certification works which is telling in and of itself.
They refuse to accept that communism is a good IDEA but doesn't work in the real world, due to leadership corruption.
The same criticism is often leveled at capitalism.
Communism is a good idea that doesn't work because people tend to be greedy self centered pricks. Capitalism does work (at least better than communism) for the same reasons. Capitalism is the worst economic system ever, except for all the others.
Surely the people of the US don't want to be without a postal service?
I could live without it. Nothing but crap in my mail box. Stuff gets lost or stolen all the time. It's a prime source of identity theft. It gives those with a nefarious purpose (lawyers) a way to claim they sent you something. I'm sure I lose stuff all the time in trying to find anything actually useful buried amongst the garbage. About the only things I every send through the mail are to services living in the internet dark ages of yesteryear (primarily government services).
Definitely, if all the valuable assets of your business is in software (Solaris, StarOffice, Java, Redhat Linux, etc) and you give away such software for free then your business does not make sense at all.
If you think America is overly nationalistic what do you think about China? Russia?
Or those fanatical Canadians. The few Canadians at hockey games in the US sing that friggin national anthem louder than the 10 times as many Americans sing theirs.
There's a such thing as responsible disclosure, and Wikileaks blew it. They're irresponsible.
Ummm...and how did Wikileaks get all those documents? I'd say the above statement is more applicable to the US government than to Wikileaks. The US government is the one with the information they were trying to keep secret. I'd say it's the height of irresponsibility to have security so friggin piss poor that one person could leak that much secret information.
The point isn't to be accurate; it's to be engaging... nobody cares enough to go back and call them on their failures.
And thus we have the modern press/news regime. No need to actually report correct information. Just report what is entertaining whether it's true or not and certainly don't waste any time trying to determine the truth of anything.
Microsoft needs to understand that when they sell someone a piece of hardware, it is no longer Microsoft's to control outside of allowing it on their network or not.
That's just not true anymore. They've managed to pervert copyright law from the constitutional purpose of "to promote progress" to one of absolute control of anything, including ideas, anyone makes.
As much as I'd love purchasing this game I refuse for one reason: DRM. I refuse to buy a product that someone else gets to decide whether I can use it or not.
"Film your own movies"/"Write your own books"/"Build your own games"/"Perform your own music" will be the response of the copyright conglomerates.
Won't be possible. They'll make it illegal. Otherwise the independents would undercut their market. They've already started that process too. You have to pay a fee to play your own music in a public place. And the definition of a "public performance" is being expanded to the point it includes listening with headphones loud enough that someone might hear. You have to pay a fee to stream your own music over the internet.
Wow, the lengths you sick people will go through to justify your thievery. Listen up, douchebag:
Wow, the lengths you sick people will go through to justify anti-capitalistic protectionist laws that stomp on and oppress the rights and freedoms of everyone else because you can't figure out how to get paid what you want for doing what you want do. Listen up, douchebag: Just because you have this outrageous sense of entitlement that people should pay you the exactly the way you want to get paid for doing exactly what you want to do doesn't mean there should be laws stifling innovation and restricting what everyone else can do simple so you can get paid what you want when you want. If you can't make a living doing what you want to do learn how that fryer works. Just because you work on something doesn't mean you should get paid for and expect society to bend to your will. You are a pathetic human being. I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if they passed a law saying you had to pay half of what you make to whoever made your computer because you used it to produce the software your trying to sell. You'd be out of there faster than it takes for you to get the fry basket out when the beeper goes off.
If you can't figure out how to make a living doing want you want to do I'd suggest doing something else. Don't expect society to shape itself around you just because you feel you deserve to get paid for something. It's funny the number of opensource companies that can make money off something that people are free do download and use for free. Oh and I write software for a living so don't even try pulling out that card.
The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV.
Ummm...they aren't used to signing anything when they buy software either. Unless I'm mistaken the guy who bought the software in this case didn't sign anything. Just stick a piece of paper on the stove or refrigerator or car such that you have remove it to use the item and voila you have a license agreement not a sale.
First, The writers and editors do not have to be people trained in the field and this is acknowledge by Wikipedia in its disclaimer. Second, anyone can change almost any Wikipedia article to support a position, then site that version of the article.
Yeah, but the solution lies here: Every Wikipedia article I've every looked at about anything medical had a nice list of first source material listed in their references section. Those article are confirmed to be written by experts in the field of relevance to the article. You check the source articles and golly gee, it confirms the information in the Wikipedia article. So although Wikipedia may be a secondary source, at least on technical subjects it list well sourced supporting material.
To suggest otherwise would be to say that one is better off relying on Wikipedia articles to make medical diagnoses over one's doctor.
That's probably more often the case than most people would guess. You see the Wikipedia article is almost certainly based on information from multiple experts (easily confirmed by the references) whereas your doctors diagnoses is largely dependent on his individual knowledge and how well he keeps up on that particular subject and when it comes to medical diagnoses there is one HELL of a lot of information to keep up with. If my doctor's diagnoses differs from that in a Wikipedia article I'd sure as HELL be doing a LOT of research on the subject myself.
Yes, multi-threaded is harder, but you get used to it, like anything else. And then, like anything else, you get a gut instinct as to where you or someone else screwed up, just by the way the code is reacting.
I agree whole heartedly with everything you said. But the quoted above is the key factor. It is harder. Manual memory management is also harder. Those combined makes for a programming environment that is harder than the average code jockey can comprehend. This results in code with very subtle bugs that can be extremely difficult to track down. The point I was trying to make is that C++ is rarely a simpler programming environment than Java. It requires a much better understanding of what's happening at a much lower level to figure out the bugs. I've codded some pretty complex programs in Java including some that required soft realtime monitoring over the internet and I've never encountered a bug that was as difficult to track down as some I've encountered in C or C++. Again I'm not saying Java is the answer in all cases but the majority of the time it's sufficient to get the job done and much cheaper from both a development and a support perspective.
Multithreaded programming is hard, and management of access rights to data structures is critical. If you're doing that correctly, then manual memory management adds a negligible amount of complexity to that in most cases, but gives you a significant win in performance. If you're not doing that correctly, then garbage collection merely reduces the risk of some types of errant behavior while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of other types.
You're missing the point. The combination of manual memory management with multi-threaded programming makes for much more subtle and difficult to find bugs. No program or programmer is perfect. There WILL be bugs. The problem is that combination can make them orders of magnitude more difficult to find.
It's not that hard - just do like your mother taught you - put things back when you're finished with them.
Two things. First it is hard. It takes an almost anal level of attention to detail especially in a multi-threaded environment. That's something woefully missing in your run of the mill programmer. Second, the bugs introduced can be EXTREMELY subtle and VERY difficult to find especially in a multi-threaded environment.
Anecdote: I was working on a multi-threaded realtime system that involved message queues between objects interacting with hardware. The queuing system was developed by someone else and had gone through extensive testing. I was tasked with adding network communications to the messaging system. With the network communications module added it was core dumping at random times and places generally after days of running. I spent over a month trying to find the problem in my code. All the while, the people who had developed the messaging system insisted the problem couldn't be there and showed me the months of tests result on the messaging system. After over a month, including line by line review of my code, I started looking over the messaging system code I found one place where they were releasing a mutex then freeing some memory. 2 lines of code that were reversed amongst 1000's of lines of code. Their testing didn't reveal it because on their test runs there was almost no random variance in the execution. Everything responded at fixed intervals and the pattern never including something getting a pointer to that memory after the mutex was released and before it was freed. The network communications added randomness which disrupted the pattern and this happened periodically.
I suspect that Europeans who know where all the countries of the EU are (and yet miss many states) also know where, say, Korea is. Or Saudi Arabia.
That's cause you guys on the right side of the pond thought you owned all those places at one time or another. Us Americans here on the left side pretty much stuck to thinking we owned the all places on this continent.
How am I supposed to know the difference between a police GPS tracker and a bomb?
The same way you're supposed to know that some official moron can't tell the difference between a light bright and a bomb? Doesn't matter. You're still guilty.
making them use up more of it sending out the bomb squad to remove their device.
Nah. They'd just prosecute you for calling in a false report, interfering with an investigation and obstruction of justice then send you a bill for any costs associated with their response.
If you screw up on military hardware, your ability to kill the enemy is reduced, but your ability to kill friendlies (the operators of the hardware, their wingmen/platoonmates/whatever, other technicians on the apron or in the laager) is enhanced. Just like in the "mecical" world.
Wait...who does the "medical" world consider an enemy? That could be important to know next time I'm in a hospital.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a moron...Call me a bleeding liberal if you will, but the police are more afraid of lawsuits than they are of armed individual resistance.
You're a moron liberal. If the cops were more afraid of law suits they'd knock on the door, hand the guy a slip of paper and politely escort him down town. Not much chance of lawsuit there. Now sneaking up to someones house, shooting their dogs, busting down the door and charging in with machine guns? THAT has potential lawsuit written all over it from so many directions I wouldn't even know where to begin. Your reasoning defies logic.
The latter they have training and material to deal with.
They certainly have the equipment but I'd argue strongly that they don't have the training. That's the biggest part of the problem. Their equipment FAR outstrips their training. The primary job of a police entity should be to de-escalate situations not escalate them. They get all those shiny toys and suddenly they start acting like stormtroopers rather than police.
Granted, their tactics were heavy-handed, but it sounds like all they did was execute a search warrant, based on the (correct) information that the IP address was assigned to that customer. The fact that he decided to extend 'his' IP address to other people does not negate the information LE had.
And how effort, time and money would it have cost for LE to actually do just a little bit of actual investigation (you know, their jobs) and discover that the guys router had unsecure WiFi? One hell of a lot less of all three than a swat raid on an innocent man.
Nowhere does it say anyone at that house was ever arrested or charged with anything.
No but they frigging broke his doors down, invaded his house with machine guns pointed at him and took all his stuff. But gee, they didn't arrest him. The most moronic part of these completely unjustified police state raids is that they raise a situation that could easily be handled in safe, peaceful manner into a highly confrontational dangerous situation where there is real danger to life of both LE and innocent civilians. That's some fine police work there.
But they didn't arrest him so no harm no foul.
Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"?
If you actually read the article you'll find that it's clearly stated that the initial information is from a Google brief and therefore may be biased. And then you'll find in the update to the article that the GSA, who grants the certifications in question, clearly states that Google's claims in the brief are true. That may be just a slightly less biased source supporting Google's claims in the brief.
Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.
No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).
That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?
If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.
So far as I've seen, this is true. Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet
Steve, is that you? Naaa, can't be. It's been a while since you've been reported as throwing chairs so even if you're on your meds no way the response would be that calm.
It's as far as you've seen because you've got Microsoft logos painted on your glasses. Read the article. The GSA stated that Google's offering was FISMA certified since July 2010. Since they're the ones who do the certifications I'd say that makes a pretty strong case as to who's lying here (it's Microsoft, in case you're still too dense to see it).
Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet
Even if they didn't their claim that Google's wasn't was a blatant lie. And a clear indication that they don't even understand how FISMA certification works which is telling in and of itself.
They refuse to accept that communism is a good IDEA but doesn't work in the real world, due to leadership corruption.
The same criticism is often leveled at capitalism.
Communism is a good idea that doesn't work because people tend to be greedy self centered pricks. Capitalism does work (at least better than communism) for the same reasons. Capitalism is the worst economic system ever, except for all the others.
7. Oh, and YOU buy the beer.
Actually this replaces rule 6.
Surely the people of the US don't want to be without a postal service?
I could live without it. Nothing but crap in my mail box. Stuff gets lost or stolen all the time. It's a prime source of identity theft. It gives those with a nefarious purpose (lawyers) a way to claim they sent you something. I'm sure I lose stuff all the time in trying to find anything actually useful buried amongst the garbage. About the only things I every send through the mail are to services living in the internet dark ages of yesteryear (primarily government services).
Definitely, if all the valuable assets of your business is in software (Solaris, StarOffice, Java, Redhat Linux, etc) and you give away such software for free then your business does not make sense at all.
Oops.
If you think America is overly nationalistic what do you think about China? Russia?
Or those fanatical Canadians. The few Canadians at hockey games in the US sing that friggin national anthem louder than the 10 times as many Americans sing theirs.
There's a such thing as responsible disclosure, and Wikileaks blew it. They're irresponsible.
Ummm...and how did Wikileaks get all those documents? I'd say the above statement is more applicable to the US government than to Wikileaks. The US government is the one with the information they were trying to keep secret. I'd say it's the height of irresponsibility to have security so friggin piss poor that one person could leak that much secret information.
The point isn't to be accurate; it's to be engaging... nobody cares enough to go back and call them on their failures.
And thus we have the modern press/news regime. No need to actually report correct information. Just report what is entertaining whether it's true or not and certainly don't waste any time trying to determine the truth of anything.
Microsoft needs to understand that when they sell someone a piece of hardware, it is no longer Microsoft's to control outside of allowing it on their network or not.
That's just not true anymore. They've managed to pervert copyright law from the constitutional purpose of "to promote progress" to one of absolute control of anything, including ideas, anyone makes.
As much as I'd love purchasing this game I refuse for one reason: DRM. I refuse to buy a product that someone else gets to decide whether I can use it or not.
"Film your own movies"/"Write your own books"/"Build your own games"/"Perform your own music" will be the response of the copyright conglomerates.
Won't be possible. They'll make it illegal. Otherwise the independents would undercut their market. They've already started that process too. You have to pay a fee to play your own music in a public place. And the definition of a "public performance" is being expanded to the point it includes listening with headphones loud enough that someone might hear. You have to pay a fee to stream your own music over the internet.
Wow, the lengths you sick people will go through to justify your thievery. Listen up, douchebag:
Wow, the lengths you sick people will go through to justify anti-capitalistic protectionist laws that stomp on and oppress the rights and freedoms of everyone else because you can't figure out how to get paid what you want for doing what you want do. Listen up, douchebag: Just because you have this outrageous sense of entitlement that people should pay you the exactly the way you want to get paid for doing exactly what you want to do doesn't mean there should be laws stifling innovation and restricting what everyone else can do simple so you can get paid what you want when you want. If you can't make a living doing what you want to do learn how that fryer works. Just because you work on something doesn't mean you should get paid for and expect society to bend to your will. You are a pathetic human being. I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if they passed a law saying you had to pay half of what you make to whoever made your computer because you used it to produce the software your trying to sell. You'd be out of there faster than it takes for you to get the fry basket out when the beeper goes off.
If you can't figure out how to make a living doing want you want to do I'd suggest doing something else. Don't expect society to shape itself around you just because you feel you deserve to get paid for something. It's funny the number of opensource companies that can make money off something that people are free do download and use for free. Oh and I write software for a living so don't even try pulling out that card.
The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV.
Ummm...they aren't used to signing anything when they buy software either. Unless I'm mistaken the guy who bought the software in this case didn't sign anything. Just stick a piece of paper on the stove or refrigerator or car such that you have remove it to use the item and voila you have a license agreement not a sale.
First, The writers and editors do not have to be people trained in the field and this is acknowledge by Wikipedia in its disclaimer. Second, anyone can change almost any Wikipedia article to support a position, then site that version of the article.
Yeah, but the solution lies here: Every Wikipedia article I've every looked at about anything medical had a nice list of first source material listed in their references section. Those article are confirmed to be written by experts in the field of relevance to the article. You check the source articles and golly gee, it confirms the information in the Wikipedia article. So although Wikipedia may be a secondary source, at least on technical subjects it list well sourced supporting material.
To suggest otherwise would be to say that one is better off relying on Wikipedia articles to make medical diagnoses over one's doctor.
That's probably more often the case than most people would guess. You see the Wikipedia article is almost certainly based on information from multiple experts (easily confirmed by the references) whereas your doctors diagnoses is largely dependent on his individual knowledge and how well he keeps up on that particular subject and when it comes to medical diagnoses there is one HELL of a lot of information to keep up with. If my doctor's diagnoses differs from that in a Wikipedia article I'd sure as HELL be doing a LOT of research on the subject myself.
Yes, multi-threaded is harder, but you get used to it, like anything else. And then, like anything else, you get a gut instinct as to where you or someone else screwed up, just by the way the code is reacting.
I agree whole heartedly with everything you said. But the quoted above is the key factor. It is harder. Manual memory management is also harder. Those combined makes for a programming environment that is harder than the average code jockey can comprehend. This results in code with very subtle bugs that can be extremely difficult to track down. The point I was trying to make is that C++ is rarely a simpler programming environment than Java. It requires a much better understanding of what's happening at a much lower level to figure out the bugs. I've codded some pretty complex programs in Java including some that required soft realtime monitoring over the internet and I've never encountered a bug that was as difficult to track down as some I've encountered in C or C++. Again I'm not saying Java is the answer in all cases but the majority of the time it's sufficient to get the job done and much cheaper from both a development and a support perspective.
Multithreaded programming is hard, and management of access rights to data structures is critical. If you're doing that correctly, then manual memory management adds a negligible amount of complexity to that in most cases, but gives you a significant win in performance. If you're not doing that correctly, then garbage collection merely reduces the risk of some types of errant behavior while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of other types.
You're missing the point. The combination of manual memory management with multi-threaded programming makes for much more subtle and difficult to find bugs. No program or programmer is perfect. There WILL be bugs. The problem is that combination can make them orders of magnitude more difficult to find.
It's not that hard - just do like your mother taught you - put things back when you're finished with them.
Two things. First it is hard. It takes an almost anal level of attention to detail especially in a multi-threaded environment. That's something woefully missing in your run of the mill programmer. Second, the bugs introduced can be EXTREMELY subtle and VERY difficult to find especially in a multi-threaded environment.
Anecdote: I was working on a multi-threaded realtime system that involved message queues between objects interacting with hardware. The queuing system was developed by someone else and had gone through extensive testing. I was tasked with adding network communications to the messaging system. With the network communications module added it was core dumping at random times and places generally after days of running. I spent over a month trying to find the problem in my code. All the while, the people who had developed the messaging system insisted the problem couldn't be there and showed me the months of tests result on the messaging system. After over a month, including line by line review of my code, I started looking over the messaging system code I found one place where they were releasing a mutex then freeing some memory. 2 lines of code that were reversed amongst 1000's of lines of code. Their testing didn't reveal it because on their test runs there was almost no random variance in the execution. Everything responded at fixed intervals and the pattern never including something getting a pointer to that memory after the mutex was released and before it was freed. The network communications added randomness which disrupted the pattern and this happened periodically.
I suspect that Europeans who know where all the countries of the EU are (and yet miss many states) also know where, say, Korea is. Or Saudi Arabia.
That's cause you guys on the right side of the pond thought you owned all those places at one time or another. Us Americans here on the left side pretty much stuck to thinking we owned the all places on this continent.
How am I supposed to know the difference between a police GPS tracker and a bomb?
The same way you're supposed to know that some official moron can't tell the difference between a light bright and a bomb? Doesn't matter. You're still guilty.
making them use up more of it sending out the bomb squad to remove their device.
Nah. They'd just prosecute you for calling in a false report, interfering with an investigation and obstruction of justice then send you a bill for any costs associated with their response.
If you screw up on military hardware, your ability to kill the enemy is reduced, but your ability to kill friendlies (the operators of the hardware, their wingmen/platoonmates/whatever, other technicians on the apron or in the laager) is enhanced. Just like in the "mecical" world.
Wait...who does the "medical" world consider an enemy? That could be important to know next time I'm in a hospital.