This doesn't really make your example plausible, but I just wanted to point out that with video, you actually can pull out information even if the pixel resolution is limited.
This sounds interesting. Can you post a link to the company website?
I'm guessing that at most they can get 2, 3, maybe 4 times the resolution (4, 9, or 16 times the information) -- not enough to see a face in a reflection like they do on TV but enough to go from 480p to 1920p.
Anyone who says we don't need anonymity just doesn't fear the government enough for their own good. And anyone who makes the government look bad without at least trying to hide their identity needs to study their history a tad more.
Although I agree with you, can I rephrase that?
Anyone who makes the government / any powerful organization look bad without at least pausing to think about the repercussions is foolish. Hiring a lawyer might be a good idea. Contacting the TSA and giving them six months notice is also a good idea. Contacting two or three major newspapers and letting them know about it is also a good idea.
But for once, I think Chris Soghoian is brace to use his real name and not hide. If he is really willing to face imprisonment and fines to make the TSA more accountable, the USA safer, and the draconian new "security" measures less credible, he's brave and patriotic in my book.
First of all, I think the rule of law is extremely important. The laws (at least in theory) represent the rules agreed to by the people and until the people choose to rewrite them, everyone should abide by them. This allows citizens and foreigners stability (as opposed to anarchy) while giving them control at the same time (as opposed to a dictatorship).
If the laws offend some citizens, they must pursue the legal process for changing them, but not violate them. I think most of the posts today complain that the laws aren't fair, etc. There are ways of having them rewritten. I'd like to see them rewritten. This farce where a well-meaning individual must risk their career to make a difference in the security practices of the TSA could result in a new bill that more clearly defines such things (cited in the TSA letter) as:
"fraudulent purpose"
"circumvent any security system"
"enter... a secure area"
To see changes though, this would have to motivate the people. So far, the voters of the USA have chosen to leave things alone. Apparently, the TSA is doing just fine according to most Americans.
Further, I think the case can be made that Chris is innocent of the charges.
"fraudulent purpose": Chris has clearly stated his purpose. In particular, "3. Demonstrate that the TSA Boarding Pass/ID check is useless" does not represent fraudulent purpose. Senator Charles E. Schumer demonstrated the same thing and is likewise not guilty of any fraud. Their intents were clear, and they made no attempt to either create, use, or cause others to create or use a fake boarding pass.
"circumvent any security system": this is essentially the same claim. By publishing a program which automatically generates "valid" boarding passes, both Charles and Chris have acted to preserve security by publishing the method of operation of the system. Not only is this protected by the First Amendment, it is not circumvention unless action is taken to attack the actual systems in operation. Neither Chris nor Charles have entered secure areas without authorization. They have not caused others to do so. They are only guilty of revealing the method in use.
If a system fails to control access when its encryption becomes public knowledge, it is not a secure system, in the same way that DRM can never stop piracy. This is immaterial to the case, however, since Chris only provided a web page to generate encrypted data, and did not reveal the key.
"enter... a secure area": if the TSA has evidence that anyone has successfully entered their secured areas, I propose they present it in the court case. As a corollary, Steve Ballmer has said that linux users have "an undisclosed balance sheet liability," and he is likewise welcome to provide evidence of that liability. Innocent until proven guilty. However, in Chris's case, he has stated that he did not even print a boarding pass, much less get through security at an airport. What if there is a bug in his code and the pass does not actually work? He won't know. That wasn't his purpose.
This is analogous to the scientist that invents some "cure", skips FDA approval, injects himself, and it ends up harming himself and others.
I can see your point. However, what Chris has done is akin to publishing a Star Trek replicator's database entry for borg implants. He knows they are dangerous. He also knows that others (like Senator Schumer) have previously published the same information. If someone chooses to load the database entry into their replicator (they would have to intenti
Also, sending back to the community isn't always a guarantee that your changes will make it in, or that they will make it in by the time you need it. In that respect open source projects are similar to commercial products: in both cases you are often subject to the whims of leaders who are not your employees.
I was thinking along the same lines, and wondering what arguments could be made by a company which wants to contribute a large set of patches and what arguments could be made by the project lead in the open source community.
I'm assuming everything stays rational. For example, if the company just announces on the mailing list "here are 50,000 lines of code, please apply patch," the project lead isn't going to accept that.
So the company would have to start small. Perhaps they would just submit a few patches implementing some of the critical core functionality of their customizations.
Then some time would elapse while the community adjusted to that. Perhaps the "open-sourcing" project would be handled by one developer in the company at first, while they got the ball rolling.
There are definitely potential disagreements where the project lead doesn't want to change the direction of the project to meet the business needs of the company. In this case, a compromise would prove the mettle of the company developer who could harmonize the company's code with the project's goals. It would surprise me if the functionality couldn't be included somewhere.
I'm thinking of the way IBM became a significant contributor to the linux kernel.
In addition, 40.7% is just a bump up from 39%, which (apparently) Spectrolab has been achieving for the better part of the year. They may be very close to high-volume production. Direct photovoltaic solar generation is an immediate revenue source, but solar energy can be directly applied for other processes, the most notable being desalination.
But I feel like something's going on -- like I'm playing 3 card monte on the street or something.
Nice analogy.
Scenario: Three card monte. (Microsoft / Novell agreement)
Setting: Dark alley. Famous in Mexico city. (Legal conversations held behind closed doors)
Players: The dealer. Random passers-by who are "just normal people". Someone acting as a lookout for the police. (Microsoft - has a history of extinguishing "partners." Novell - a contributing member of the open source community. Lookout? I'm sure there are some, but I can't clearly label them.)
Sucker: You. Buy into the game, try to follow the cards when the dealer lays them out, and you might win big. Chances of a fair deal, or catching the sleight of hand: vanishingly small. (Open source community might suffer from FUD, lawsuits, and any other sleight of hand Microsoft plays. Maybe. It's a gamble. What are the chances Microsoft would attempt to extinguish Open Source?)
The Throw: The dealer can throw the cards onto the table so convincingly that even those aware of the method cannot tell which of two cards is the one you are looking for. Chance of getting swindled: 50%. (Purchase Suse linux. Benefit from patent deal. I give Novell a 50-50 chance of being cast out from the open source community.)
The "Mexican turnover": (That's what it's called. Sorry, I think that's a pretty racist name.) If you by chance get the right card, the dealer uses the card next to it to "flip it over," but deftly switches cards. He won't let you win, and you'll have to confront him on the swindle. Chances of actually getting the money promised: very, very slim. (Microsoft won't let you win. They are not interested in benefitting the customer, and in regard to Open Source, their long-standing opinions are well documented. See: Halloween Documents, or more recently, Ballmer's statements of "undisclosed balance sheet liability.")
Do not fear, I work for the important security team that just place the extensive documentation on the web site. Please click for the more information.
I've actually seen some good tailgater tactics that are legal (in CA...although there were no cops around). YMMV, heh.
Trucker with load spotlights and an empty flatbed trailer. Tailgaters get 5,000,000 candela right in the eyes. Also works for people coming from behind with their brights on.
Weave a little like a drunk driver (other posters on this thread already mentioned this one)
Pop the trunk. However, your trunk should be empty, since littering is illegal.
Sometimes they really get to me. Then I have a few fist-sized rocks. Roll them out the sunroof and they'll fall off the back. This is definitely illegal.
Thanks! However, reading the paper, it seems that this paper is about the California Department of Corrections, and is not actually about who will commit homicide "on the outside." It's about which prisoners are "likely to engage in serious misconduct while incarcerated" (from the abstract). I don't know if this is the right paper. In fact, I'm going to guess that Berk hasn't published a paper on his new method. This paper may be a similar method, but there's no way to know that.
I also wonder in yousendit.com can handle a slashdotting. I guess we'll know soon!
I really don't like the idea of unmanned surveillance vehicles flying over urban areas
Perimeter surveillance -- for private corporations -- is one thing.
But big brother obviously has the funds and is already doing border patrol between the USA and Mexico.
The thing is, current technologies look for only really two things: motion or IR (body heat). If you were wearing enough tin foil you wouldn't have a heat signature. I recommend spray painting it black first. Then hop the fence and proceed into Texas.
Like most really interesting technologies, Civil UAVs are a solution looking for a problem right now. There are a few really good applications that mostly law enforcement are looking at:
Fighting fires, especially at night (current FAA regs prevent piloted aircraft from flying into fires at night)
Mobile perimeter surveillance
However, having worked in the UAV industry for the past five years, it's pretty apparent that the current solutions are still pricey. I remember seeing an article about the LAPD launching a UAV initiative for surveillance.
The technology is advancing and prices are dropping, but it's not time yet. Watch companies like Aerovironment and the normal defense contractors (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, General Atomics, etc.) for future developments.
(Full disclosure: I don't work for any of these companies, and I don't plan on investing in them.)
Not a sure thing, but the economy we know is doomed. The stock market is terminal too, but the big money will be sure to get out first, in keeping with the traditional screwing of the masses
One problem is that if enough of the masses believe this, it becomes reality. Heh, from "Sneakers:"
Cosmo: While in prison, I learned everything in this world, including money operates not on reality... Bishop: - But the perception of reality. Cosmo: Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky. Bishop: - Consequence - People start to withdraw their money. Cosmo: - Result: Pretty soon, it is financially shaky. Bishop: - Conclusion: You can make banks fail. Cosmo: Bzzzt! I've already done that. Maybe you've read about a few? Think bigger. Bishop: - Stock market? Cosmo: - Yes. Bishop: - Currency market. Cosmo: - Yes. Bishop: Commodities market. Cosmo: - Yes. Bishop: Small countries?
Cosmo nods. Cosmo: I might even be able to crash the whole damn system.
So I think we should hold onto the free market system for a little longer at least.
If you are playing with someone else's money - even as a learning exercise - you have an obligation to act in their best interests. Otherwise, you're just doing a Halliburton on a smaller scale. Save your good intentions for your own money.
You are spot-on, but this doesn't answer the question he asked. Assuming (hypothetically) you were ordered to invest in Open Source, what company would you invest in? Novell?!?! (SARCASM THERE!)
It's not hard to understand a mutual fund's interest in Open Source. The PHB's hear that buzzword as often as they hear web2.0, right? Okay, so people want Open Source to work for them, make them money, you know, just like everything else.
This is where I get off the train, so the rest of this post is a tangent. But the question is valid, and I'm choosing not to answer it either. Someone else feel free to jump in with options like Google, Red Hat, even Oracle... Now let me explain why Open Source is not a part of my investment strategy
(Standard disclaimer that the following is not to be construed as investment advice and I am not liable for your financial losses -- or gains.)
I think that looking at the whole point of the FSF's Free Software (intentionally narrowing the definition, since the BSD license makes things more complicated for this discussion) -- Free Software is not only liberated from closed-source restrictions such as copyright and IP laws so that it can be shared openly, but this also means the act of copying it can be performed at zero cost. Zero-cost copies are an inherent element of the internet and commodity computing. Therefore, although Free Software makes great sense in business plans, it is the antithesis of business!
Free Software provides the same thing that other communities provide: donated goods and services that have market value but have been "given back" to the community. Thus, Novell faces serious repercussions if they are booted from the community -- and that could hurt their balance sheet. However, even though the community involves sales, transactions, etc., where a customer pays money (e.g. Red Hat support contracts), the donated goods and services produce a segment of the market that has zero market value. Whether we are talking about Free Software, with the technology to give the donation to everyone in the world, or other communities where hospitals are sometimes willing to write off medical expenses when the patient is completely overwhelmed by medical bills -- the effect is to make the goods and services (software or medical bills) of zero value. Why would a hospital do this? Why would a "hobbyist" (Bill Gates' term) or programmer give away software? Some would argue this threatens the very livelihood of the one giving away stuff.
But the hospital or programmer receives intangible goods and services in return. Put simply, it's a return to a basic barter system. I, the hospital director, authorize certain "free care." In return, I receive the goodwill of members of my community. If I am overwhelmed with immigrants from far-away communities who demand my free care, and then depart, the economics of medical care might overwhelm me. (But many hospitals are so well-funded that this really isn't a problem.) Any marketing student will tell you that the goodwill of your community can have a concrete impact on your balance sheet. As a contributor to Free Software, I receive the goodwill of members of the community. In this technology realm, though, there can be as many leechers as kernel.org and sourceforge.org can handle before hypothetically the community would start to suffer.
Thus companies like Google have exactly the right business plan. By investing in open source software, they invest in the community goodwill where the community is the entire planet. Then they capitalize on this by asking the community to view their advertisements, use their online office tools, se
I couldn't agree more. I'm currently running two cases: An original PC-XT case (heh. built like a tank), and a medium tower (originally a 386). I've got an Athlon X2 in the PC-XT (took a little tweaking since they moved from AT to ATX, but thank goodness for two double-height drive bays). And I've got a Core Duo in the tower.
I would have kept the power supplies, but they weren't ATX. That was a sad day.
carbon-14 dating is only used for relatively recent samples (i.e., the last 60,000 years or so).
For older samples, other types of radiometric dating are used. For example, take a look at isochron dating
I try to date only up to double my own age, but if you need to check a Geiger counter when you get your date, maybe her age isn't the main problem here?
Ever since this comment, I think the RIAA plants have become a little more cautious. To the parent poster: truly, you are a coward. But give 'em a few days and they'll come out from under their rocks. By the way, zuki's post is a great example of someone in the recording industry who is not a "plant," just a normal/.er.
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. I think it originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, unless it comes from an earlier interview with Doug Morris.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds interesting. Can you post a link to the company website?
I'm guessing that at most they can get 2, 3, maybe 4 times the resolution (4, 9, or 16 times the information) -- not enough to see a face in a reflection like they do on TV but enough to go from 480p to 1920p.
Sounds like flamebait to me.
Oh man, and now I had to go and read the letter just to see if it mentioned Chewie!
Han shot first.
Anyone who makes the government / any powerful organization look bad without at least pausing to think about the repercussions is foolish. Hiring a lawyer might be a good idea. Contacting the TSA and giving them six months notice is also a good idea. Contacting two or three major newspapers and letting them know about it is also a good idea.
But for once, I think Chris Soghoian is brace to use his real name and not hide. If he is really willing to face imprisonment and fines to make the TSA more accountable, the USA safer, and the draconian new "security" measures less credible, he's brave and patriotic in my book.
Just my two cents.
First of all, I think the rule of law is extremely important. The laws (at least in theory) represent the rules agreed to by the people and until the people choose to rewrite them, everyone should abide by them. This allows citizens and foreigners stability (as opposed to anarchy) while giving them control at the same time (as opposed to a dictatorship).
If the laws offend some citizens, they must pursue the legal process for changing them, but not violate them. I think most of the posts today complain that the laws aren't fair, etc. There are ways of having them rewritten. I'd like to see them rewritten. This farce where a well-meaning individual must risk their career to make a difference in the security practices of the TSA could result in a new bill that more clearly defines such things (cited in the TSA letter) as:
To see changes though, this would have to motivate the people. So far, the voters of the USA have chosen to leave things alone. Apparently, the TSA is doing just fine according to most Americans.
Further, I think the case can be made that Chris is innocent of the charges.
If a system fails to control access when its encryption becomes public knowledge, it is not a secure system, in the same way that DRM can never stop piracy. This is immaterial to the case, however, since Chris only provided a web page to generate encrypted data, and did not reveal the key.
I can see your point. However, what Chris has done is akin to publishing a Star Trek replicator's database entry for borg implants. He knows they are dangerous. He also knows that others (like Senator Schumer) have previously published the same information. If someone chooses to load the database entry into their replicator (they would have to intenti
All this was from a slashdot article two days ago.
I was thinking along the same lines, and wondering what arguments could be made by a company which wants to contribute a large set of patches and what arguments could be made by the project lead in the open source community.
I'm assuming everything stays rational. For example, if the company just announces on the mailing list "here are 50,000 lines of code, please apply patch," the project lead isn't going to accept that.
So the company would have to start small. Perhaps they would just submit a few patches implementing some of the critical core functionality of their customizations.
Then some time would elapse while the community adjusted to that. Perhaps the "open-sourcing" project would be handled by one developer in the company at first, while they got the ball rolling.
There are definitely potential disagreements where the project lead doesn't want to change the direction of the project to meet the business needs of the company. In this case, a compromise would prove the mettle of the company developer who could harmonize the company's code with the project's goals. It would surprise me if the functionality couldn't be included somewhere.
I'm thinking of the way IBM became a significant contributor to the linux kernel.
In addition, 40.7% is just a bump up from 39%, which (apparently) Spectrolab has been achieving for the better part of the year. They may be very close to high-volume production. Direct photovoltaic solar generation is an immediate revenue source, but solar energy can be directly applied for other processes, the most notable being desalination.
Scenario: Three card monte. (Microsoft / Novell agreement)
Setting: Dark alley. Famous in Mexico city. (Legal conversations held behind closed doors)
Players: The dealer. Random passers-by who are "just normal people". Someone acting as a lookout for the police. (Microsoft - has a history of extinguishing "partners." Novell - a contributing member of the open source community. Lookout? I'm sure there are some, but I can't clearly label them.)
Sucker: You. Buy into the game, try to follow the cards when the dealer lays them out, and you might win big. Chances of a fair deal, or catching the sleight of hand: vanishingly small. (Open source community might suffer from FUD, lawsuits, and any other sleight of hand Microsoft plays. Maybe. It's a gamble. What are the chances Microsoft would attempt to extinguish Open Source?)
The Throw: The dealer can throw the cards onto the table so convincingly that even those aware of the method cannot tell which of two cards is the one you are looking for. Chance of getting swindled: 50%. (Purchase Suse linux. Benefit from patent deal. I give Novell a 50-50 chance of being cast out from the open source community.)
The "Mexican turnover": (That's what it's called. Sorry, I think that's a pretty racist name.) If you by chance get the right card, the dealer uses the card next to it to "flip it over," but deftly switches cards. He won't let you win, and you'll have to confront him on the swindle. Chances of actually getting the money promised: very, very slim. (Microsoft won't let you win. They are not interested in benefitting the customer, and in regard to Open Source, their long-standing opinions are well documented. See: Halloween Documents, or more recently, Ballmer's statements of "undisclosed balance sheet liability.")
It's a classic case of Three Card Monte.
Do not fear, I work for the important security team that just place the extensive documentation on the web site. Please click for the more information.
Cue "Mac is not more secure than Windows" in 3... 2... 1...
Gamespot requires registration. Can anyone post the HD version (I know...46 Mb is kinda big) for me to look at? Please?
Thanks! However, reading the paper, it seems that this paper is about the California Department of Corrections, and is not actually about who will commit homicide "on the outside." It's about which prisoners are "likely to engage in serious misconduct while incarcerated" (from the abstract). I don't know if this is the right paper. In fact, I'm going to guess that Berk hasn't published a paper on his new method. This paper may be a similar method, but there's no way to know that.
I also wonder in yousendit.com can handle a slashdotting. I guess we'll know soon!
Get an unlocked GPS-enabled camera phone. There, problem solved.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes travelling 500 miles per hour at 10,000 feet over your house.
But big brother obviously has the funds and is already doing border patrol between the USA and Mexico.
The thing is, current technologies look for only really two things: motion or IR (body heat). If you were wearing enough tin foil you wouldn't have a heat signature. I recommend spray painting it black first. Then hop the fence and proceed into Texas.
- Fighting fires, especially at night (current FAA regs prevent piloted aircraft from flying into fires at night)
- Mobile perimeter surveillance
However, having worked in the UAV industry for the past five years, it's pretty apparent that the current solutions are still pricey. I remember seeing an article about the LAPD launching a UAV initiative for surveillance.The technology is advancing and prices are dropping, but it's not time yet. Watch companies like Aerovironment and the normal defense contractors (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, General Atomics, etc.) for future developments.
(Full disclosure: I don't work for any of these companies, and I don't plan on investing in them.)
Cosmo: While in prison, I learned everything in this world, including money operates not on reality...
Bishop: - But the perception of reality.
Cosmo: Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky.
Bishop: - Consequence - People start to withdraw their money.
Cosmo: - Result: Pretty soon, it is financially shaky.
Bishop: - Conclusion: You can make banks fail.
Cosmo: Bzzzt! I've already done that. Maybe you've read about a few? Think bigger.
Bishop: - Stock market?
Cosmo: - Yes.
Bishop: - Currency market.
Cosmo: - Yes.
Bishop: Commodities market.
Cosmo: - Yes.
Bishop: Small countries? Cosmo nods.
Cosmo: I might even be able to crash the whole damn system.
So I think we should hold onto the free market system for a little longer at least.
You are spot-on, but this doesn't answer the question he asked. Assuming (hypothetically) you were ordered to invest in Open Source, what company would you invest in? Novell?!?! (SARCASM THERE!)
It's not hard to understand a mutual fund's interest in Open Source. The PHB's hear that buzzword as often as they hear web2.0, right? Okay, so people want Open Source to work for them, make them money, you know, just like everything else.
This is where I get off the train, so the rest of this post is a tangent. But the question is valid, and I'm choosing not to answer it either. Someone else feel free to jump in with options like Google, Red Hat, even Oracle... Now let me explain why Open Source is not a part of my investment strategy
(Standard disclaimer that the following is not to be construed as investment advice and I am not liable for your financial losses -- or gains.)
I think that looking at the whole point of the FSF's Free Software (intentionally narrowing the definition, since the BSD license makes things more complicated for this discussion) -- Free Software is not only liberated from closed-source restrictions such as copyright and IP laws so that it can be shared openly, but this also means the act of copying it can be performed at zero cost. Zero-cost copies are an inherent element of the internet and commodity computing. Therefore, although Free Software makes great sense in business plans, it is the antithesis of business!
Free Software provides the same thing that other communities provide: donated goods and services that have market value but have been "given back" to the community. Thus, Novell faces serious repercussions if they are booted from the community -- and that could hurt their balance sheet. However, even though the community involves sales, transactions, etc., where a customer pays money (e.g. Red Hat support contracts), the donated goods and services produce a segment of the market that has zero market value. Whether we are talking about Free Software, with the technology to give the donation to everyone in the world, or other communities where hospitals are sometimes willing to write off medical expenses when the patient is completely overwhelmed by medical bills -- the effect is to make the goods and services (software or medical bills) of zero value. Why would a hospital do this? Why would a "hobbyist" (Bill Gates' term) or programmer give away software? Some would argue this threatens the very livelihood of the one giving away stuff.
But the hospital or programmer receives intangible goods and services in return. Put simply, it's a return to a basic barter system. I, the hospital director, authorize certain "free care." In return, I receive the goodwill of members of my community. If I am overwhelmed with immigrants from far-away communities who demand my free care, and then depart, the economics of medical care might overwhelm me. (But many hospitals are so well-funded that this really isn't a problem.) Any marketing student will tell you that the goodwill of your community can have a concrete impact on your balance sheet. As a contributor to Free Software, I receive the goodwill of members of the community. In this technology realm, though, there can be as many leechers as kernel.org and sourceforge.org can handle before hypothetically the community would start to suffer.
Thus companies like Google have exactly the right business plan. By investing in open source software, they invest in the community goodwill where the community is the entire planet. Then they capitalize on this by asking the community to view their advertisements, use their online office tools, se
I couldn't agree more. I'm currently running two cases: An original PC-XT case (heh. built like a tank), and a medium tower (originally a 386). I've got an Athlon X2 in the PC-XT (took a little tweaking since they moved from AT to ATX, but thank goodness for two double-height drive bays). And I've got a Core Duo in the tower.
I would have kept the power supplies, but they weren't ATX. That was a sad day.
Other possible RIAA plants (this story only):
- #17043086 (User: Man in Spandex)
- #17043272 (User: LO0G)
- #17042814 (User: seriv)
- #17043858 (User: j-beda)
- #17043038 (User: Jerry Rivers)
- #17043474, #17043550 (User: pandrijeczko)
On a side note, the quote in the summary, "These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. It originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, and was discussed on slashdot."These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,. So it's time to get paid for it," is not from the Reuters press release. I think it originally appeared in the Billboard article announcing the Zune launch, unless it comes from an earlier interview with Doug Morris.