"said they expect the results of the investigation to prompt additional rules limiting the functions of automated computer trading systems"
And why not START here?
As if we need or can benefit from automated trading, on the scale both in time and money that these systems did. It's both thievery and fraud: Thievery by deriving profit from a system by manipulating the market in a way that should be offensive to real people, and fraudulent because it operates in a way that deprives an actual person from either competing or even reacting.
Completely pus. Slow them down to full seconds at least, ok?
And the primary response is to watch and stop trading if the stock changes value 10% in 5 minutes. Ha! these programs have already made their nut by then. Way too late. How about volume and timing triggers also, and punish runaway platform owners with some fines to at least cover the cost of investigation...
I'm no longer sure I want mutual funds. But I know I'm not involved with NASDAQ for sure.
I'm waiting for a clean version of Wireshark for Android now, so the community can look over the traces and see which app sends their data to China. Pleeze, Laura, pleeze can I has capturz?
Blaming mobile doesn't work. My G1 from TMO gets a 10. block address, and most carriers have to do that. It even routes through a 172.16.x before getting back into 10. privates.
It must be China. If everyone in China had an address, we would be in some trouble.
Then it's already over. In that scenario, I expect IPV4 assignments to end before 2011. God help us.
Of course, if DOD could go to 3 Class A blocks, that would give us 8 to work with. Ignoring all the classful problems, which should NOT be an issue, does that last us at least through most of 2011?
IPV6 has been resisted by virtually all major players, with few exceptions.
IPV6 is poorly tested in the real world. We will see massive problems getting it working.
IPV6 WILL WORK. It will take some time.
IPV6 will coexist with IPV4 poorly, and we will see a dramatic changeover as the critical mass of IPV6 nodes comes online, and IPV4 is more trouble than it's worth to keep around for a little while longer. My estimate, 3 years.
Asia will lag behind in IPV6 adoption.
Some interesting points:
The U.S. Department of Defense holds 11 Class A blocks. If they could reduce their usage to just 3, we could give IPV6 another 3 years of grace. But:
- If we give IPV6 3 more years, it will still take 3 years from then to substantially implement it. And the industry will take those 3 years to avoid the pain.
- The DOD will need at least 5 years to reorganize and give back those Class A blocks. The Navy alone will need 2 years to negotiate with EDS/HP to make the changes. Read up on NMCI and you will recognize a genuine military-grade CF. NMCI is a failure. IPV6 would merely give EDS/HP another opportunity to gouge the service. They rarely miss these opportunities.
- There are several Class A block owners that look like better candidates for either conversion or elimination. None seem ready to do what the DOD would have to do, i.e. spend massive amounts of time and money to make a change for the community, without any real benefit to them.
Just some personal IPV6 observations:
I had two different Fedora distros fail for me at home because IPV6 was turned on and both my router (Linksys WRT54G stock F/W) and my ISPs (Cox and Qwest) fritzed their IPV6 implementations. No, wait, both ISPs had no working IPV6 in the Phoenix area in 2005-2008, despite claims to the opposite. The Linksys I will probably have to reload with something more useful, but it's the early one that can take a lot of new firmware.
Oh, and turning off IPV6 in each Fedora release required different and arcane methods. A hint to the Linux community - common and stable configuration methods would be a blessing. And not just a GUI. I know, security, security, security. I can assure you, my broken Fedora builds were secure, even from me. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
I think my Ubuntu distro left IPV4 on and IPV6 off, but I haven't looked. It works, and has for 3 years.
Despite the clamoring for IPV6, it just has no traction. Why bother yet? Like a lot of things, crisis will have to escalate to failure before this gets fixed.
If Jon Postel were still with us, he would have already made this happen. I miss him so. We need individuals that drive Internet management and administration, not groups. Internet by committee is failing. Can we not find anyone trustworthy to lead Internet functionality at this level?
No, Stallman is not the answer. And nobody at Sun/Oracle either.
Actually, Buran probably cost 20B Rubles, and the expenditure was unsupportable. Some would say that this alone precipitated the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, but I think we can give their military and good ol' Ronnie some credit.
Where I work, HR is primarily responsible for ensuring policies and procedures are adhered to. In some cases, a security issue could very well involve matters that could not be disclosed to anyone ourside of a particular department or group, in fact restricted by Federal law or laws of any number of countries. In these cases, I would expect HR would be told that the dismissal was per policy, and corporate counsel would confirm without divulging details.
Yes, there are things that HR would not know the intimate details of. Maybe not in a lot of companies, but in some.
And no, this is not military or government. Those are indeed 'special'.
Hmmm. As I recall, Comp cases back then were pretty much private companies underwriting employers. In this case the employer was a multinational before that was cool.
I have no doubt BJ gave all the details. There was a complaint to the county attorney, and it the case was dropped by them. Back then, someone would probably count it as severe distress and let it go. Today, he would be up on charges in hours. We are not so innocent anymore.
Yes, standards change. There was a time that divorce cases would go along with husbands being incredibly angry and distraught. Today, if a husband raises his voice in court, he's likely to get a restraining order. The level of tolerance is much lower.
Most of my field shots were 50yds, but I scored well with the 6X scope on the Springfield we had for long shots. BJ says he was 200yds out, and the video sort of supports that. 30x zoom on those old cameras was really awful, but it was obvious the guy was chopping wood. His comment about the scope was, to me, something like seeing the lenses flare, but he liked to tell the eye story better. Of course, he could have misjudged the distance, but I think the subject was shooting a.308 scoped, and I'm not at all partial to those. My mom's.300 Savage was sweet, but the.30-06 was really quite nice to shoot. I would have expected to make the shot with that, but a hunting.308 is just not my choice.
BJ didn't embellish much in the old days. But he believed the subject intended to hit him. People do weird things.
Even today you give corporations too much credit, I think. Many do not properly evalute risk, even in relatively minor issues. And some, especially some in the news lately, seem to think they can in fact get away with anything.
History would show you this is more true than you are willing to admit to.
He should be in the grave. I know I can shoot better than that.
But for the subject, losing his comp AND his job was punishment enough. There is the question of leaving a person free who was willing to commit murder, but it is also very possible he meant off scare off BJ. Mind you, that's still assault at least.
In the 80s, a good friend of mine retired from police work and went into PI work for insurance companies. He related one of his early close calls to me...
He went out into the woods a bit to videotape a man who was collecting worker's comp for a back injury for a few years. He taped him for a half hour chopping wood in his backyard. After a moment's break looking around (it was deer hunting season), the subject put down the axe, walkd over and picked up his rifle, and looked to be sighting a deer.
My friend is still taping, and he zooms in for a moment, sighting right down the scope. He can see the subject's eye in the scope.
The first round hit 2 feet to his right. He moved out.
The subject spent the next two weeks looking for my friend. At the next administrative hearing, he got to see the tape. My friend is a patient and kind man. He offered to refuse to testify at a trial for attempted murder if the subject gave up his claim and went back to work. Sadly, the subject balked, and went to jail for aggravated assault. And this cost him his job. Apparently, at the nearing, he railed on about how the PI was trespassing. He was filmed from a public logging road.
BJ went on a long career catching people doing all kinds of bad things. His PI work turned his opinion of people sour much more than his police work did. He was even more disappointed at the things people would do for just money, and not very much at that.
"Notably, in most business disputes, everyone has good records and all of the paperwork."
Mod parent FUNNY. Please.
In suits against corporations, records and evidence are always the first thing to be destroyed. Just as you would perhaps delete and burn the photos of your drunken partying if faced with a DWI, corporations might not hesitate to destroy or'lose' documentation. If that's too hard, they will bury you in mountains of unrelated records, make you ask specifically for things you are not sure even exist but have to ask for, delay production, and try to charge 'reasonable' costs for documents. Perhaps they will deliver you data that is encrypted, saved in obscure formats, or even damaged.
Without discovery, you may have a hard time proving the corporation knew of a problem, or had done the same thing before. Without discovery, you may be unable to show the truth of the driver who injured you, something a simple as their eyeglass prescription or their drinking habits, or their need for speed.
While the Fifth Amendment doesn't require you to aid the prosecution, or generally be compelled to provide evidence (not always), it doesn't shield you from establishing facts about you without your consent, if they are available. In the end, are you asking that the truth not be available? Be careful what you ask for. By your measure it will be measured to you.
And go ahead and try to prove they are denying you discovery. Maybe you can, maybe not. Many a corporation will apologize for their electronic data problems, pointing out they have the same issues. Generally, the penalties for being unable (and implicitly but unproven unwilling) to produce what is asked for are less than what the damages and penalties would be for a serious (and sometimes minimal) lawsuit.
Pretty funny that you think corporations will deliver these good records without resistance, and you would delete your Facebook page in a New York minute if you thought it would tend to imcriminate you. And now you know how pointless that would be.
Let's get it straight. Absolute security doesn't exist. There is always a way.
Now, securing military systems in a closed room with an armed Marine guard would reduce the rick of physical compromise greatly. Not to zero, but pretty good.
Securing utility systems against remote attacks will take concerted efforts, and will raise the inconvenience level also, so expect some problems.
Ordinarily I would agree, but so many/.'rs would not believe the military could secure their environments, so why would pointing out that the obvious security methods should work...?
Do you think I beleive our current Administration in the US is on the side of freedom? If so, you would be in error.
If you are having trouble determining which 'freedom; I am referring to, you are in jepoardy of losing any of yours. Freedom to the individual is not compartmentalized so easily. Get with it.
"anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government -- even in the name of democratic reform -- it should qualify as 'aggression.'"
Yes, indeed, if you are part of an oppresive regime, or want to be, freedom is a direct threat to YOU. You are engaged in, or preparing for, a war against freedom. And free states are under the threat of the oppressors, who have to oppose them to survive. This is war at its most fundamental, and the oppressor states that support this seem to understsand that, and are acting to either deter the threat or eliminate it.
And this U.N. initiative, in case you missed it, is their most devastating attack on freedom yet. To suppress even the awareness of freedom is their best defense. It will fail, eventually, but they have to try, or face an even quicker demise. So they try this now.
Which side are you on? You will have to choose, you know. Someday, somehow, you will have to choose.
We have a good idea which side Russia, China, Brazil(WTF?), Chile (ditto), Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mali, Sudan, India, Madagascar, Myanmar, Vietnam, Serbia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbyjan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, and Nicaragua are on, and they are not alone. Other states will gladly support this if it comes to a vote.
The U.N. has a majority of states that do not favor freedom. They are your enemies if you do. There is no in between, no compromise, just an uneasy coexistance.
Slashdot Mirror
"said they expect the results of the investigation to prompt additional rules limiting the functions of automated computer trading systems"
And why not START here?
As if we need or can benefit from automated trading, on the scale both in time and money that these systems did. It's both thievery and fraud: Thievery by deriving profit from a system by manipulating the market in a way that should be offensive to real people, and fraudulent because it operates in a way that deprives an actual person from either competing or even reacting.
Completely pus. Slow them down to full seconds at least, ok?
And the primary response is to watch and stop trading if the stock changes value 10% in 5 minutes. Ha! these programs have already made their nut by then. Way too late. How about volume and timing triggers also, and punish runaway platform owners with some fines to at least cover the cost of investigation...
I'm no longer sure I want mutual funds. But I know I'm not involved with NASDAQ for sure.
I suppose I could buy an N8. Or, I could pay a little attention and wonder why a game needs to read my contacts.
There is middle ground. More Helpful Advice From The Linux Community. Thank you.
I'm trying to stick to the phone. If I want to put it in ADB, I can use Wireshark on my notebook and nail it. I want to have the phone do it..
I know, I know, just do what you can.
So, you should be expected to fix your car. After all, you're DRIVING it, right?
Now, how interested am I in learning enough Java to evaluate my Android apps for security breaches?
pfft. Gotta go unload some apps, brb.
What experts? There is no experts for this.
I'm waiting for a clean version of Wireshark for Android now, so the community can look over the traces and see which app sends their data to China. Pleeze, Laura, pleeze can I has capturz?
Did it wake you?
If so, functional.
If not, HE got to get a broom. Not you. Stop whining. Big deal.
True.
Blaming mobile doesn't work. My G1 from TMO gets a 10. block address, and most carriers have to do that. It even routes through a 172.16.x before getting back into 10. privates.
It must be China. If everyone in China had an address, we would be in some trouble.
Then it's already over. In that scenario, I expect IPV4 assignments to end before 2011. God help us.
Of course, if DOD could go to 3 Class A blocks, that would give us 8 to work with. Ignoring all the classful problems, which should NOT be an issue, does that last us at least through most of 2011?
Not that it matters, DOD can't do that.
Unfortunately, they will be dominated by China, which has no reason play nice with anyone right now.
But I think you give Asia more credit than due. APNIC is not as nimble as you seem to be implying.
Really?
Well, ok, a little recap:
IPV6 has been resisted by virtually all major players, with few exceptions.
IPV6 is poorly tested in the real world. We will see massive problems getting it working.
IPV6 WILL WORK. It will take some time.
IPV6 will coexist with IPV4 poorly, and we will see a dramatic changeover as the critical mass of IPV6 nodes comes online, and IPV4 is more trouble than it's worth to keep around for a little while longer. My estimate, 3 years.
Asia will lag behind in IPV6 adoption.
Some interesting points:
The U.S. Department of Defense holds 11 Class A blocks. If they could reduce their usage to just 3, we could give IPV6 another 3 years of grace. But:
- If we give IPV6 3 more years, it will still take 3 years from then to substantially implement it. And the industry will take those 3 years to avoid the pain.
- The DOD will need at least 5 years to reorganize and give back those Class A blocks. The Navy alone will need 2 years to negotiate with EDS/HP to make the changes. Read up on NMCI and you will recognize a genuine military-grade CF. NMCI is a failure. IPV6 would merely give EDS/HP another opportunity to gouge the service. They rarely miss these opportunities.
- There are several Class A block owners that look like better candidates for either conversion or elimination. None seem ready to do what the DOD would have to do, i.e. spend massive amounts of time and money to make a change for the community, without any real benefit to them.
Just some personal IPV6 observations:
I had two different Fedora distros fail for me at home because IPV6 was turned on and both my router (Linksys WRT54G stock F/W) and my ISPs (Cox and Qwest) fritzed their IPV6 implementations. No, wait, both ISPs had no working IPV6 in the Phoenix area in 2005-2008, despite claims to the opposite. The Linksys I will probably have to reload with something more useful, but it's the early one that can take a lot of new firmware.
Oh, and turning off IPV6 in each Fedora release required different and arcane methods. A hint to the Linux community - common and stable configuration methods would be a blessing. And not just a GUI. I know, security, security, security. I can assure you, my broken Fedora builds were secure, even from me. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
I think my Ubuntu distro left IPV4 on and IPV6 off, but I haven't looked. It works, and has for 3 years.
Despite the clamoring for IPV6, it just has no traction. Why bother yet? Like a lot of things, crisis will have to escalate to failure before this gets fixed.
If Jon Postel were still with us, he would have already made this happen. I miss him so. We need individuals that drive Internet management and administration, not groups. Internet by committee is failing. Can we not find anyone trustworthy to lead Internet functionality at this level?
No, Stallman is not the answer. And nobody at Sun/Oracle either.
Actually, Buran probably cost 20B Rubles, and the expenditure was unsupportable. Some would say that this alone precipitated the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, but I think we can give their military and good ol' Ronnie some credit.
Where I work, HR is primarily responsible for ensuring policies and procedures are adhered to. In some cases, a security issue could very well involve matters that could not be disclosed to anyone ourside of a particular department or group, in fact restricted by Federal law or laws of any number of countries. In these cases, I would expect HR would be told that the dismissal was per policy, and corporate counsel would confirm without divulging details.
Yes, there are things that HR would not know the intimate details of. Maybe not in a lot of companies, but in some.
And no, this is not military or government. Those are indeed 'special'.
Hmmm. As I recall, Comp cases back then were pretty much private companies underwriting employers. In this case the employer was a multinational before that was cool.
I have no doubt BJ gave all the details. There was a complaint to the county attorney, and it the case was dropped by them. Back then, someone would probably count it as severe distress and let it go. Today, he would be up on charges in hours. We are not so innocent anymore.
Yes, standards change. There was a time that divorce cases would go along with husbands being incredibly angry and distraught. Today, if a husband raises his voice in court, he's likely to get a restraining order. The level of tolerance is much lower.
Preyty stereotypical, considering the JPL scientists are annoyed not at HR, but Security.
And Security works a LOT. Your complaint might be that they work too much.
And that makes sense how?
Most of my field shots were 50yds, but I scored well with the 6X scope on the Springfield we had for long shots. BJ says he was 200yds out, and the video sort of supports that. 30x zoom on those old cameras was really awful, but it was obvious the guy was chopping wood. His comment about the scope was, to me, something like seeing the lenses flare, but he liked to tell the eye story better. Of course, he could have misjudged the distance, but I think the subject was shooting a .308 scoped, and I'm not at all partial to those. My mom's .300 Savage was sweet, but the .30-06 was really quite nice to shoot. I would have expected to make the shot with that, but a hunting .308 is just not my choice.
BJ didn't embellish much in the old days. But he believed the subject intended to hit him. People do weird things.
So how many does it take?
Your sample seems lacking also. Trust?
Even today you give corporations too much credit, I think. Many do not properly evalute risk, even in relatively minor issues. And some, especially some in the news lately, seem to think they can in fact get away with anything.
History would show you this is more true than you are willing to admit to.
He should be in the grave. I know I can shoot better than that.
But for the subject, losing his comp AND his job was punishment enough. There is the question of leaving a person free who was willing to commit murder, but it is also very possible he meant off scare off BJ. Mind you, that's still assault at least.
In the 80s, a good friend of mine retired from police work and went into PI work for insurance companies. He related one of his early close calls to me...
He went out into the woods a bit to videotape a man who was collecting worker's comp for a back injury for a few years. He taped him for a half hour chopping wood in his backyard. After a moment's break looking around (it was deer hunting season), the subject put down the axe, walkd over and picked up his rifle, and looked to be sighting a deer.
My friend is still taping, and he zooms in for a moment, sighting right down the scope. He can see the subject's eye in the scope.
The first round hit 2 feet to his right. He moved out.
The subject spent the next two weeks looking for my friend. At the next administrative hearing, he got to see the tape. My friend is a patient and kind man. He offered to refuse to testify at a trial for attempted murder if the subject gave up his claim and went back to work. Sadly, the subject balked, and went to jail for aggravated assault. And this cost him his job. Apparently, at the nearing, he railed on about how the PI was trespassing. He was filmed from a public logging road.
BJ went on a long career catching people doing all kinds of bad things. His PI work turned his opinion of people sour much more than his police work did. He was even more disappointed at the things people would do for just money, and not very much at that.
Discovery sucks, but being guilty sucks more.
"Notably, in most business disputes, everyone has good records and all of the paperwork."
Mod parent FUNNY. Please.
In suits against corporations, records and evidence are always the first thing to be destroyed. Just as you would perhaps delete and burn the photos of your drunken partying if faced with a DWI, corporations might not hesitate to destroy or'lose' documentation. If that's too hard, they will bury you in mountains of unrelated records, make you ask specifically for things you are not sure even exist but have to ask for, delay production, and try to charge 'reasonable' costs for documents. Perhaps they will deliver you data that is encrypted, saved in obscure formats, or even damaged.
Without discovery, you may have a hard time proving the corporation knew of a problem, or had done the same thing before. Without discovery, you may be unable to show the truth of the driver who injured you, something a simple as their eyeglass prescription or their drinking habits, or their need for speed.
While the Fifth Amendment doesn't require you to aid the prosecution, or generally be compelled to provide evidence (not always), it doesn't shield you from establishing facts about you without your consent, if they are available. In the end, are you asking that the truth not be available? Be careful what you ask for. By your measure it will be measured to you.
And go ahead and try to prove they are denying you discovery. Maybe you can, maybe not. Many a corporation will apologize for their electronic data problems, pointing out they have the same issues. Generally, the penalties for being unable (and implicitly but unproven unwilling) to produce what is asked for are less than what the damages and penalties would be for a serious (and sometimes minimal) lawsuit.
Pretty funny that you think corporations will deliver these good records without resistance, and you would delete your Facebook page in a New York minute if you thought it would tend to imcriminate you. And now you know how pointless that would be.
Facebook exposes you. Remember this.
There IS NO security.
Let's get it straight. Absolute security doesn't exist. There is always a way.
Now, securing military systems in a closed room with an armed Marine guard would reduce the rick of physical compromise greatly. Not to zero, but pretty good.
Securing utility systems against remote attacks will take concerted efforts, and will raise the inconvenience level also, so expect some problems.
But perfection? No.
Ordinarily I would agree, but so many /.'rs would not believe the military could secure their environments, so why would pointing out that the obvious security methods should work...?
Completely. They have the .mil network, and can't secure that. So the answer is to segregate the 'real' Internet and a 'secure' Internet?
And this will prevent infestations via USB drive how exactly?
I thought so. Next, please.
Do you think I beleive our current Administration in the US is on the side of freedom? If so, you would be in error.
If you are having trouble determining which 'freedom; I am referring to, you are in jepoardy of losing any of yours. Freedom to the individual is not compartmentalized so easily. Get with it.
Wait, you're an AC. Why am I replying? Ack...
"anytime a government promotes ideas on the Internet with the goal of subverting another country's government -- even in the name of democratic reform -- it should qualify as 'aggression.'"
Yes, indeed, if you are part of an oppresive regime, or want to be, freedom is a direct threat to YOU. You are engaged in, or preparing for, a war against freedom. And free states are under the threat of the oppressors, who have to oppose them to survive. This is war at its most fundamental, and the oppressor states that support this seem to understsand that, and are acting to either deter the threat or eliminate it.
And this U.N. initiative, in case you missed it, is their most devastating attack on freedom yet. To suppress even the awareness of freedom is their best defense. It will fail, eventually, but they have to try, or face an even quicker demise. So they try this now.
Which side are you on? You will have to choose, you know. Someday, somehow, you will have to choose.
We have a good idea which side Russia, China, Brazil(WTF?), Chile (ditto), Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mali, Sudan, India, Madagascar, Myanmar, Vietnam, Serbia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbyjan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, and Nicaragua are on, and they are not alone. Other states will gladly support this if it comes to a vote.
The U.N. has a majority of states that do not favor freedom. They are your enemies if you do. There is no in between, no compromise, just an uneasy coexistance.
You will have to choose. Do so wisely.