If there is a settlement the money ought to come from two people, the officer who requested the warrant and the judge who approved it. However, Qualified Immunity will prevent this. And Qualified Immunity is a legal policy, not a law that has been passed and signed into force.
There was nothing wrong with the warrant. What was wrong was that the police didn't take the warrant, knock on the door, and ask if they could have a look at the iPhone, but went in with brute force first. I know there are situations where they will break in unannounced, if they suspect armed and dangerous people in the house, or they suspect that evidence could be destroyed very quickly (drugs going down the toilet), but neither was the case here.
Look at it like an accountant. X dollars have been paid by buyers, and X dollars have been paid to sellers, minus Y dollars paid in fees. Of the X-Y dollars paid to sellers, a significant amount has been paid to criminals who stole various amounts of bitcoin. And another quite signifcant amount has been paid for mining hardware and mining power.
Not sure what role the losers are playing who managed to lose various amounts of bitcoin.
why isn't the SWAT team in jail as well? they killed an unarmed man for no reason.
They didn't kill an unarmed man for no reason. They killed an unarmed man because a psychopath convinced them to expect an armed murderer holding hostages.
Assume that an armed person enters a house, kills one inhabitant, holds the rest hostage, and a neighbour calls the police with exactly the same message as this psychopath. A SWAT team will arrive, and the situation will be dangerous for the killer. However, the killer has the advantage (compared to the innocent victim in this case) that he can expect what is coming and react appropriately.
His earlier response shows he's a psychopath, so there' no doubt that he's only feeling remorseful "for the cameras", so to speak.
He said basically "I understand that I'm not the only one who suffered. The family of the victim is also suffering".
That's a psychopath for you. And when people say they are sorry for the family of the victim, they should first and foremost feel sorry for the victim, who is now lying in a coffin six foot deep.
There are other issues. Putting someone in prison for years: 1) Damages that person mentally and increases the mental disturbance they have when they enter prison. 2) Costs taxpayers HUGE amounts of money.
Fully agree. Can we send a swatting team to this home then to save on cost?
He didn't pull a trigger. He killed no one. The cops did.
Although I think you are a fucking idiot for thinking like that, let's assume you are right and this case was the cop's fault.
Can we then agree that any slashdot reader in the future who has read that the cops are mindless killers, and who makes a swatting call, is now fully aware that he or she is sending mindless killers to a person's home, and is therefore guilty of premeditated murder?
It's still obviously much more the police's fault than his.
You're a fucking idiot. This brainless psychopath sat at home and decided to have fun by sending the police into a situation where the expected a dangerous armed person holding hostages. Without him doing this, the police would have stayed at their police station and nothing would have happened.
Your health data is not reported back to Apple. It's stored on your phone. And many people interested in their health _want it_ to be stored on their phone.
Murder charges are not strict liability - you need to be able to show the accused intended the death. It's not enough for the accused to have merely caused the death through reckless stupidity
Quote: "Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness."
Calling a SWAT team to a home pretending that there is a hostage situation is extreme recklessness. If it ends with a person being dead, it is murder.
These are the kind of numbers we need for statistics to make sense. With 13% of the population making up 25% of a statistic, that percentage has a marked increase in chance/risk of whatever the statistic is made to show. In this case, risk of getting shot and killed.
You are correct, if black people are 13% of the population and 25% of people killed by the police, that's not right. However saying "the majority of people shot by police are black" is still untrue and gives a very wrong picture.
What about the pigs who did the actual murdering - should they be treated as harshly as this dumb asshole kid?
There were no pigs involved, but armed police officers. And they didn't murder anyone. They were called to a supposedly highly dangerous situation and made a mistake.
All the systems that do speculative execution are vulnerable to Spectre. So the basic underlying design needs to be addressed.
I think it's not the speculative execution. It's the fact that speculative execution made it possible to have detectable side effects. For example, if you stopped the processor clock when mis-prediction costs time, that could fix the problem or at least part of it. (So even though it takes more time in the real world, that wouldn't be detectable by any code running).
Next up: Woz issues a press release explaining why the Apple II isn't vulnerable.
The first few generations of Macs were not vulnerable. No malware could access data from other processes or users, because there were no other processes or users. Probably the same with early Windows versions.
1) In order for you to be "vulnerable", you must be running some kind of malware. If you're running malware, you are already fucked with a sand-paper dildo.
Depends. If I run malware on my Mac and it is 100% limited to the single user that it's running on, then I'm fucked. Because the single user (me) is all I care about. If I run malware on a cloud server that is 100% limited to the single user that it's running on, then _I_ am still fucked, but everyone else on the server is safe. If I ran malware on my iPhone, software isn't supposed to be able to access anything outside that app, so I should be safe even with malware.
So fixing this is not _that_ important for a single user desktop or laptop, it's _very_ important for phones and tablets that should have protection between apps, and critically important for any servers.
If Intel had disclosed that as soon as they knew, with no fix known or available, _that's_ when you would have a reason to sue them. My Mac got mostly protected some time in December. If Intel had disclosed this, there would have been 5 months open to hackers to attack me.
There are plenty of 68k emulators. On a modern computer, even an emulator would be way faster than the original hardware.
When Apple switched from 68k to PowerPC, the new PowerPC Macs came with a 68k emulator. I think a PowerPC running at 110MHz was Apple's fastest 68k machine ever. It beat a 40 MHz 68k computer running 68k code, which was about 5 to 8 times faster than the Lisa
I'd say a single core on a modern x86 processor is again 20 times faster. And Apple's emulator was an interpreter, you could expect considerable improvement from a compiler.
Bitcoin has some intrinsic value, though, so long as the blockchain is maintained. What follows isn't an example I came up with; it's an example that I once read, and found intriguing at its very least.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value whatsoever. All that a bitcoin is is evidence that someone wasted a large amount of electric power to mine it. If any western country should get a green government, they might change their laws to put anyone owning bitcoins into jail.
Apple says that one in a million random people can unlock your phone with their face. The woman in the article may work with say 50 colleagues. If you take 20,000 women like her, then you can expect one to have a colleague who looks similar enough.
So what you are saying is nothing more than the usual slashdot bullshit. Someone found two women in China who were similar enough. Big news.
Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph [sic] just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.
The DMCA didn't protect Hitler. He's dead. It protected the State of Bavaria, Germany, which is officially the heir to Hitler's estate (no relative came forward who wanted it), and which was very unwilling to give anyone permission to make copies of the book.
What an utterly idiotic and pathetic thing to say. If the DMCA required this young boy to commit suicide to avoid himself and his family to be arrested and convicted to death by hanging, then it would still be stupid. Not utterly idiotic anymore, but stupid.
Escaping SQL seems to be almost impossible task in this era of Unicode and gazillion encoding types, only safe way to go is prepared statements or something similar
JSON for example has no problems whatsoever putting any sequence of Unicode code points into a string, so I really can't say why SQL should have a problem with it.
That's what I'm saying. Why does SQL allows to "break out of a string" in the first place?
Because SQL receives just a string containing valid SQL. SQL doesn't know that the string was created by some idiot concatenating parts of SQL commands and data coming from an untrusted user.
On the other hand, if you think that sending database commands as plain strings is a bad idea from the start, you are not wrong there.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is a settlement the money ought to come from two people, the officer who requested the warrant and the judge who approved it. However, Qualified Immunity will prevent this. And Qualified Immunity is a legal policy, not a law that has been passed and signed into force.
There was nothing wrong with the warrant. What was wrong was that the police didn't take the warrant, knock on the door, and ask if they could have a look at the iPhone, but went in with brute force first. I know there are situations where they will break in unannounced, if they suspect armed and dangerous people in the house, or they suspect that evidence could be destroyed very quickly (drugs going down the toilet), but neither was the case here.
Some gambled and won, most will lose.
Look at it like an accountant. X dollars have been paid by buyers, and X dollars have been paid to sellers, minus Y dollars paid in fees. Of the X-Y dollars paid to sellers, a significant amount has been paid to criminals who stole various amounts of bitcoin. And another quite signifcant amount has been paid for mining hardware and mining power.
Not sure what role the losers are playing who managed to lose various amounts of bitcoin.
why isn't the SWAT team in jail as well? they killed an unarmed man for no reason.
They didn't kill an unarmed man for no reason. They killed an unarmed man because a psychopath convinced them to expect an armed murderer holding hostages.
Assume that an armed person enters a house, kills one inhabitant, holds the rest hostage, and a neighbour calls the police with exactly the same message as this psychopath. A SWAT team will arrive, and the situation will be dangerous for the killer. However, the killer has the advantage (compared to the innocent victim in this case) that he can expect what is coming and react appropriately.
His earlier response shows he's a psychopath, so there' no doubt that he's only feeling remorseful "for the cameras", so to speak.
He said basically "I understand that I'm not the only one who suffered. The family of the victim is also suffering".
That's a psychopath for you. And when people say they are sorry for the family of the victim, they should first and foremost feel sorry for the victim, who is now lying in a coffin six foot deep.
There are other issues. Putting someone in prison for years: 1) Damages that person mentally and increases the mental disturbance they have when they enter prison. 2) Costs taxpayers HUGE amounts of money.
Fully agree. Can we send a swatting team to this home then to save on cost?
He didn't pull a trigger. He killed no one. The cops did.
Although I think you are a fucking idiot for thinking like that, let's assume you are right and this case was the cop's fault.
Can we then agree that any slashdot reader in the future who has read that the cops are mindless killers, and who makes a swatting call, is now fully aware that he or she is sending mindless killers to a person's home, and is therefore guilty of premeditated murder?
It's still obviously much more the police's fault than his.
You're a fucking idiot. This brainless psychopath sat at home and decided to have fun by sending the police into a situation where the expected a dangerous armed person holding hostages. Without him doing this, the police would have stayed at their police station and nothing would have happened.
Your health data is not reported back to Apple. It's stored on your phone. And many people interested in their health _want it_ to be stored on their phone.
Murder charges are not strict liability - you need to be able to show the accused intended the death. It's not enough for the accused to have merely caused the death through reckless stupidity
Quote: "Many states use the California definition of implied malice to describe an unintentional killing that is charged as murder because the defendant intended to do serious bodily injury, or acted with extreme recklessness." Calling a SWAT team to a home pretending that there is a hostage situation is extreme recklessness. If it ends with a person being dead, it is murder.
These are the kind of numbers we need for statistics to make sense. With 13% of the population making up 25% of a statistic, that percentage has a marked increase in chance/risk of whatever the statistic is made to show. In this case, risk of getting shot and killed.
You are correct, if black people are 13% of the population and 25% of people killed by the police, that's not right. However saying "the majority of people shot by police are black" is still untrue and gives a very wrong picture.
What about the pigs who did the actual murdering - should they be treated as harshly as this dumb asshole kid?
There were no pigs involved, but armed police officers. And they didn't murder anyone. They were called to a supposedly highly dangerous situation and made a mistake.
All the systems that do speculative execution are vulnerable to Spectre. So the basic underlying design needs to be addressed.
I think it's not the speculative execution. It's the fact that speculative execution made it possible to have detectable side effects. For example, if you stopped the processor clock when mis-prediction costs time, that could fix the problem or at least part of it. (So even though it takes more time in the real world, that wouldn't be detectable by any code running).
this is a crackdown on crypto and other alternative payment systems that are superior to Visa in every way
If they are so superior, why do people want a pre-paid Visa card?
Next up: Woz issues a press release explaining why the Apple II isn't vulnerable.
The first few generations of Macs were not vulnerable. No malware could access data from other processes or users, because there were no other processes or users. Probably the same with early Windows versions.
1) In order for you to be "vulnerable", you must be running some kind of malware. If you're running malware, you are already fucked with a sand-paper dildo.
Depends. If I run malware on my Mac and it is 100% limited to the single user that it's running on, then I'm fucked. Because the single user (me) is all I care about. If I run malware on a cloud server that is 100% limited to the single user that it's running on, then _I_ am still fucked, but everyone else on the server is safe. If I ran malware on my iPhone, software isn't supposed to be able to access anything outside that app, so I should be safe even with malware.
So fixing this is not _that_ important for a single user desktop or laptop, it's _very_ important for phones and tablets that should have protection between apps, and critically important for any servers.
If Intel had disclosed that as soon as they knew, with no fix known or available, _that's_ when you would have a reason to sue them. My Mac got mostly protected some time in December. If Intel had disclosed this, there would have been 5 months open to hackers to attack me.
There are plenty of 68k emulators. On a modern computer, even an emulator would be way faster than the original hardware.
When Apple switched from 68k to PowerPC, the new PowerPC Macs came with a 68k emulator. I think a PowerPC running at 110MHz was Apple's fastest 68k machine ever. It beat a 40 MHz 68k computer running 68k code, which was about 5 to 8 times faster than the Lisa
I'd say a single core on a modern x86 processor is again 20 times faster. And Apple's emulator was an interpreter, you could expect considerable improvement from a compiler.
I appreciate that. I sold them to you, then took your money to buy at $11k.
Of course you did. We all believe you.
Or, in other words, Samsung is making about what Apple's Irish fine is, and Apple still has more money than anyone.
Just saying: There will be no "Irish fine". There _may_ be a correction of Apple's Irish tax bill.
Bitcoin has some intrinsic value, though, so long as the blockchain is maintained. What follows isn't an example I came up with; it's an example that I once read, and found intriguing at its very least.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value whatsoever. All that a bitcoin is is evidence that someone wasted a large amount of electric power to mine it. If any western country should get a green government, they might change their laws to put anyone owning bitcoins into jail.
Apple says that one in a million random people can unlock your phone with their face. The woman in the article may work with say 50 colleagues. If you take 20,000 women like her, then you can expect one to have a colleague who looks similar enough .
So what you are saying is nothing more than the usual slashdot bullshit. Someone found two women in China who were similar enough. Big news.
Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph [sic] just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.
The DMCA didn't protect Hitler. He's dead. It protected the State of Bavaria, Germany, which is officially the heir to Hitler's estate (no relative came forward who wanted it), and which was very unwilling to give anyone permission to make copies of the book.
Is worse than Hitler.
What an utterly idiotic and pathetic thing to say. If the DMCA required this young boy to commit suicide to avoid himself and his family to be arrested and convicted to death by hanging, then it would still be stupid. Not utterly idiotic anymore, but stupid.
Escaping SQL seems to be almost impossible task in this era of Unicode and gazillion encoding types, only safe way to go is prepared statements or something similar
JSON for example has no problems whatsoever putting any sequence of Unicode code points into a string, so I really can't say why SQL should have a problem with it.
That's what I'm saying. Why does SQL allows to "break out of a string" in the first place?
Because SQL receives just a string containing valid SQL. SQL doesn't know that the string was created by some idiot concatenating parts of SQL commands and data coming from an untrusted user.
On the other hand, if you think that sending database commands as plain strings is a bad idea from the start, you are not wrong there.