Comment No no no (Score 1) 680
He means the imaginary ones that curiously only support the view taken by the vested interests who promote the denialism as exemplified by the gwpf astroturfing organisation et all
Comment Wait, what? (Score 1) 170
Maybe I am mistaken, but how is this not a Federal crime?
I'm surprised if so that Tesla didn't just call in the FBI.
IANAL, maybe someone could weigh in with more knowledge on this?
I'm surprised if so that Tesla didn't just call in the FBI.
IANAL, maybe someone could weigh in with more knowledge on this?
Hillary Clinton Used BleachBit To Wipe Emails (neowin.net) 569
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Neowin: The open-source disk cleaning application, BleachBit, got quite a decent ad pitch from the world of politics after it was revealed lawyers of the presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, used the software to wipe her email servers. Clinton is currently in hot water, being accused of using private servers for storing sensitive emails. "[South Carolina Representative, Trey Gowdy, spoke to Fox News about Hillary Clinton's lawyers using BleachBit to wipe the private servers. He said:] 'She and her lawyers had those emails deleted. And they didn't just push the delete button; they had them deleted where even God can't read them. They were using something called BleachBit. You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails or bridesmaids emails. When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.'" Two of the main features that are listed on the BleachBit website include "Shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery," and "Overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files." These two features would make it pretty difficult for anyone trying to recover the deleted emails.
Slashdot reader ahziem adds: The IT team for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used the open source cleaning software BleachBit to wipe systems "so even God couldn't read them," according to South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy on Fox News. His comments on the "drastic cyber-measure" were in response to the question of whether emails on her private Microsoft Exchange Server were simply about "yoga and wedding plans." Perhaps Clinton's team used an open-source application because, unlike proprietary applications, it can be audited, like for backdoors. In response to the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013, privacy expert Bruce Schneier advised in an article in which he stated he also uses BleachBit, "Closed-source software is easier for the NSA to backdoor than open-source software." Ironically, Schneier was writing to a non-governmental audience. Have any Slashdotters had any experience with BleachBit? Specifically, have you used it for erasing "yoga emails" or "bridesmaids emails?"
Submission + - NASA demonstrates HiRyRS-X: a Game-Changing Camera (nasa.gov)
vikingpower writes: When a rocket takes off, one sees an inferno of glowing gases streaming out of the engines: a source of unimaginably bright light, for looking at which you need at least sunglasses. No camera is adapted for a detailed recording of how the gases exactly behave. Until now. NASA developed the so-called High Dynamic Range Stereo-X-camera (HiDyRS-X), to better than ever before image what happens in and around a rocket engine during launch. And the result is a spectacular video feed. The HiDyRS-X project began as part of NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate’s Early Career Initiative (ECI), designed to give young engineers the opportunity to lead projects and develop hardware alongside leading innovators in industry. Howard Conyers, a structural dynamist at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, was awarded an ECI grant in 2015. And he developed HiDyRS-X as part of NASA's Game Changing Development program, set up to investigate technologies "that have the potential to revolutionize future space missions".
Submission + - Comcast: FCC's Set-Top Box Proposal's Impossible. FCC: (consumerist.com)
dennisl80716606 writes: The FCC's got a proposal in the works right now that Comcast doesn't like. This is not a shock; Comcast has generally not liked any headlining proposals from the FCC in recent years. Some of the cable giant's complaints are undoubtedly just sound and noise, signifying nothing other than “we like profit, don't screw with our thing.” But maybe some of its technological complaints have merit.
First, a recap of where we stand right now:
Cable companies currently make a lot of money from mandatory equipment rental fees imposed on consumers. The FCC has a proposal in the works to make the cable set-top box market at least halfway competitive. That plan has support from the White House as well as from technology and consumer advocates. That proposal, of course, also has detractors. And among those detractors, Comcast has consistently been the most vocal.
That's the background. These many months in, Comcast has made its opinion known in filings and meetings with the FCC many times. So Ars Technica, as it does, took a look at the technological complaints that Comcast is making, and the rebuttals from the FCC.
The sum of Comcast's arguments, says Ars, is that it accuses the FCC of not actually knowing how TV works in 2016. The FCC's proposal would require providers to make “information flows” available to third-party providers, the same way that they are available on a company's own hardware. Three flows would be transmitted: one would be for content itself (“content delivery”), all the programming you tune to and watch. Another would be for “service discovery,” meaning all that handy data about channel listings and programming guides. And the third would be about “entitlements” — that's whether or not you can record or fast-forward given programming.
Sounds good, right? Except Comcast claims that there's no such thing: rather than information flowing out to cable boxes, it is stored on a server and customers basically reach in and grab it on-demand. Comcast's X1 cable platform is an internet-based system, not a broadcast one (which is why it's technologically possible, for example, to run Netflix on a modern Comcast box).
These on-demand requests, Comcast adds, are too individualized to be transmitted elsewhere. In other words, they're too tied to an individual account, and over a hundred little subsystems would get completely screwed up if Comcast tried to mess with them.
The FCC, however, does not think these arguments have much weight. An unnamed senior Commission official told Ars that the FCC is perfectly aware of how on-demand, IP-based systems work and that Comcast's pile of excuses is, well, no excuse.
The FCC official said that Comcast and others could comply by creating an API that would let third parties use their data for their own software uses. The API wouldn't need to know every single feature internal to Comcast; it would only need to be able to access the customer's permissions to access content. (Much the same way as third-party apps on your phone can access some of your Facebook content without knowing everything Facebook does or being Facebook.)
The FCC official also pointed out that the API was a suggestion — the rule proposed doesn't mandate any specific solution, but instead requires everyone to develop and pick some kind of open standard that works and then stick with it.
Comcast claims the API is a no-go even though of course there's the fact that to some degree, making cloud-based cable into an app you can run anywhere already works: Comcast has itself proven this with its X1 app for Samsung and Roku devices, in addition to having a fairly robust TV-everywhere login-based viewing option for cable customers to use on their computers and tablets.
So who's more right? Ars consulted an expert who works for neither Comcast nor the FCC. That expert says that his own company ran a successful proof-of-concept demonstration showing that “off-the-shelf equipment and open standards” work right now to let third-party hardware access Comcast's (and Google Fiber's) video stream. The catch: that demo used a CableCard, which kinda sorta failed miserably to launch and is being phased out as a product and standard.
So where do we go from here? That's a big old giant open question. We'll find out if the proposal goes through or not sometime in the coming months.
Set-top saga: Comcast says it's “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules [Ars Technica]
First, a recap of where we stand right now:
Cable companies currently make a lot of money from mandatory equipment rental fees imposed on consumers. The FCC has a proposal in the works to make the cable set-top box market at least halfway competitive. That plan has support from the White House as well as from technology and consumer advocates. That proposal, of course, also has detractors. And among those detractors, Comcast has consistently been the most vocal.
That's the background. These many months in, Comcast has made its opinion known in filings and meetings with the FCC many times. So Ars Technica, as it does, took a look at the technological complaints that Comcast is making, and the rebuttals from the FCC.
The sum of Comcast's arguments, says Ars, is that it accuses the FCC of not actually knowing how TV works in 2016. The FCC's proposal would require providers to make “information flows” available to third-party providers, the same way that they are available on a company's own hardware. Three flows would be transmitted: one would be for content itself (“content delivery”), all the programming you tune to and watch. Another would be for “service discovery,” meaning all that handy data about channel listings and programming guides. And the third would be about “entitlements” — that's whether or not you can record or fast-forward given programming.
Sounds good, right? Except Comcast claims that there's no such thing: rather than information flowing out to cable boxes, it is stored on a server and customers basically reach in and grab it on-demand. Comcast's X1 cable platform is an internet-based system, not a broadcast one (which is why it's technologically possible, for example, to run Netflix on a modern Comcast box).
These on-demand requests, Comcast adds, are too individualized to be transmitted elsewhere. In other words, they're too tied to an individual account, and over a hundred little subsystems would get completely screwed up if Comcast tried to mess with them.
The FCC, however, does not think these arguments have much weight. An unnamed senior Commission official told Ars that the FCC is perfectly aware of how on-demand, IP-based systems work and that Comcast's pile of excuses is, well, no excuse.
The FCC official said that Comcast and others could comply by creating an API that would let third parties use their data for their own software uses. The API wouldn't need to know every single feature internal to Comcast; it would only need to be able to access the customer's permissions to access content. (Much the same way as third-party apps on your phone can access some of your Facebook content without knowing everything Facebook does or being Facebook.)
The FCC official also pointed out that the API was a suggestion — the rule proposed doesn't mandate any specific solution, but instead requires everyone to develop and pick some kind of open standard that works and then stick with it.
Comcast claims the API is a no-go even though of course there's the fact that to some degree, making cloud-based cable into an app you can run anywhere already works: Comcast has itself proven this with its X1 app for Samsung and Roku devices, in addition to having a fairly robust TV-everywhere login-based viewing option for cable customers to use on their computers and tablets.
So who's more right? Ars consulted an expert who works for neither Comcast nor the FCC. That expert says that his own company ran a successful proof-of-concept demonstration showing that “off-the-shelf equipment and open standards” work right now to let third-party hardware access Comcast's (and Google Fiber's) video stream. The catch: that demo used a CableCard, which kinda sorta failed miserably to launch and is being phased out as a product and standard.
So where do we go from here? That's a big old giant open question. We'll find out if the proposal goes through or not sometime in the coming months.
Set-top saga: Comcast says it's “not feasible” to comply with FCC cable box rules [Ars Technica]
Comment Re: Wait for it... (Score 1) 447
Wow your ignorance is astounding. Go read the facts about her mental status, prior issues with the police, how she opened fire first, how the cops called her parents to help negotiate, gave her 6 hours, let her boyfriend run out with an infant so they wouldn't get hurt etc.... and the cherry on the shit-sundae is she used her own son as a shield.
Ok so she has a son
If only she had put the shotgun in her mouth instead, at least she would have won a darwin award. Instead she wins the worst parent of the year award.
Darwin awards require someone to die with no offspring....
Comment Dont you diss the coffee! (Score 1) 517
Hey, who wants a double caramel latte chocca mocca made by someone who isn't a graduate?
It'd obviously taste terrible! /s
It'd obviously taste terrible!
Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 2) 517
Or appointing governments to run countries that are not elected by the people.
Can you give an actual, real-world example for the EU appointing some country's government?
Well to be fair he may be referring to the disgraceful way Greek democracy was subverted.
The fact that most pro-EU remain voters after the referendum reacted with predictable "well that vote didn't count" or "let's have a do over!" should have come as no surprise to anyone.
Yeah... except that the petition for a do-over was opened by a pro-Leave voter and opened BEFORE the referendum. But why should facts matter, right?
That whole petition thing was frankly daft. One thing a democratic country can't start doing is catering for those who can't be bothered to get their finger out and make their opinion count. Personally I'm all for compulsory voting- of course if in any voting situation nothing that was on offer worked for you then spoiling your ballot paper is to be encouraged.
If everyone wanted that a majority of the population would not have voted to leave.
Um... you're assuming that everyone was fully informed and aware of all the consequences while voting. But we heard enough voices of people who voted leave and then started to realize what benefits they're getting from the EU that they might lose. People change their mind all the time.
Yes indeed. Rather annoyingly the remain campaign missed the mark by miles, frankly because they didn't want to make the Houses of Parliament to look bad. This was a case of What has brussels ever done for us;
Comment Re:Every intelligent person (Score 2) 517
"A Remain vote would be for the status quo, not very good but at least you know where you are"
Economically at least the status quo was looking pretty good actually.
Historically continuousy very low inflation, Historically highest ever employment in actual numbers and very high percentage, and very stable healthy growth in overall standards of living.
The 'problems' blamed on the 'foreigners' are, in fact, self inflicted
High rents due to a completely unbalanced and unfair private rental system and the continued destruction of social housing, low levels of democratic accountability in Westminster due to a voting system rigged to support the establishment (and yes, this includes UKIP not getting any real representation in the houses of parliament), and immigration due to people wanting to come and *work* here despite the lack of housing options thanks to the economy. as above.
Comment Well (Score 1) 517
As a 'remainer' I seriously didn't want this course of events.
Now however it seems to me that our best bet would be to join the EEA (which is basically 'Soft Brexit'), since this gets us out of the customs union. It'll also minimise the damage overall. This means renegotiating all the curent EU trade deals again, so thats rather alot of work to do in any case.
The only silver lining to this would be the ability to negotiate trade deals where the EU feared to tread. Whether this would be affective, and not disastrous, does depend on the agendas of the UK negotiators. With Liam Fox in charge of this process I am NOT confident. He'll be doing deals for the benefit of his corporate chums, not the UK as a whole.
Full USAian TTIP with the ISCS supranational secret court screwing UK small business and industry as well as UK people is a nightmare waiting to happen. We'll see a depression like the worst in the US Rust belt. (This was due to unrestricted globalisation with no thought paid to the damage it would do to those businesses and people in the Rust belt, and no mitigation in place to help).
Comment Re:What's the point?! (Score 1) 675
"Why is America just now getting into this?"
Because Europes experience proved that Chip-n-Pin was a whole less about security and a lot more about successfully and massively reducing fraud which harms consumers retailers and banks. Eventually after several nonsense stories and no public outcries revealing that Chip-n-Pin reduced fraud massively as touted they (who "they"?) were forced to finish reducing fraud . In the US they're playing it a bit differently attempting to redirect liability onto businesses and of course i will cite my source for this when asked...(who will in turn pad their sales to redirect their losses onto consumers in the end).
There, fixed that for you from someone who actually lived through the transition in Europe. You're welcome.
Comment Re:What's the point?! (Score 1) 675
America is a higher trust society than Europe
Wait, what?
(so the extra security wasn't cost-effective)
can you back that up with a cite please?
I think it's because we all speak the same language
yes, universal Spanish, no wait English, no wait Portuguese. hmmm methinks that last bit is just not true
and don't have to deal with gypsys here.
Yes because the good old USA no minorities it demonizes, amirite?
Comment Nope (Score 5, Insightful) 675
The whole article just smacks of fear of change frankly. We in the 21st century part of the Western hemisphere have long since done this, and reaped the fraud prevention benefits (read: no significant retail chip and pin fraud, fraudsters forced to try Cardholder not Present fraud, to which there are also pretty effective countermeasures).
I suspect those retailers still asking for magswipe will be transitioned to chip usage by their card service provider as the fraudsters will increasingly target those that still insist on swipe. The money will talk in this case, however the idea of chip and sign is a bit silly in that it will only stop coounterfeit cards, not stolen cards.
Comment Except that (Score 1) 623
With the difference in speed the car would have incidentally either detected the rear wheels of the trailer and braked, or indeed missed the trailer entirely to it's rear. It's this thing about speed, you know, the faster an object is going, the less distance the object would cover in a given time frame...
Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 461
So now you tell me personally what I want eh?
Thanks for informing me, I clearly didn't know what I wanted before...
