Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:of course it wasn't NK (Score 1) 164

That's actually a counter example similar to speculation of Soviet involvement in the JFK assassination. The yellow journalist press was sure it was Spain but the USA government never made that assertion. Even when we declared war 2 months later McKinley did not cite the sinking of the Maine as a reason.


Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety 149

Posted by Soulskill
from the automated-law-enforcement dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica summaries a study by the Chicago Tribune (paywalled) that found red light cameras do not improve driver safety. "[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."

They also noted that the city chose to install many cameras at intersections where crashes were rare to begin with. Chicago has raised roughly $500 million from red light camera tickets since 2002. "[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.

Comment: Re:of course it wasn't NK (Score 1) 164

What did the USA blame Iraq for having done to us they didn't do? I can't think of much of anything. Now they certainly got stuff wrong about what was happening in Iraq and our record isn't so hot on that but accusations of specific violations we are pretty good on.

And Iraq on WMDs is somewhat exceptional in that they were sending out fake signals for internal and external reasons.

Comment: Re:of course it wasn't NK (Score 2, Interesting) 164

The reason is the USA government has a pretty good track record of not blaming foreign countries for stuff they didn't do. Meanwhile US opponents have a long history of denying involvement when they were. Comparing what is know 10 years later is pretty close to what you get from blindly believing the USA government on culpability.

Comment: Re:Misses the point (Score 1) 573

by jbolden (#48639677) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

How will this apply to N.Korea?

Its hard to see how it would apply. The two local actors most likely to act against North Korea other than ourselves is South Korea and Japan. And as you point out we already back South Korea. We are talking about substantially arming Japan, though Japan's goals are still defensive. The analogy might be to encourage the more militant elements in Japan. Though I'm not sure we have that much influence over Japan for it to matter.

But anyway your original claim is we didn't do anything in those other cases and you can see we did.

What do you imagine we will do against (nuclear armed and sitting on the border of China right next to Russia) Korea?

If our goal is not to annoy them then we either have to shift Japan to being more responsive or China to being less protective. I can think of things we could offer China for them to sell out North Korea. Heck I'm not sure if we promised an orderly dismantlement they might not go for it. China sends out very mixed signals when N Korea acts up.

As for nuclear armed in a real war I have serious questions about how much damage their nuclear program is capable of, though there is always risk. North Korea is a dangerous foe.

We'd blame them and condemn them and attempt to get sanctions. We already do all those things so it's an empty threat.

We don't have a full on blockade. Though a full on blockade would likely mean ship to ship battles and they could respond with attacks against South Korea. So escalating to blockade we have to be at least willing to have a war.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 2) 320

Your ire is aimed at something that was well established when Thatcher spoke about it. It used to be supported by the conservative side of politics until it became politically expedient to pretend that an evidence based approach was inferior to gut feeling.

Once again, pretending that experts in a very long established field, well over one century in this case, in some way have nothing that they can assert is real calls into question the idea of expertise in general. That's the road to mediocrity that we are following. First it was denouncing educated clergy versus anyone that could pick up a bible, be loud, charismatic and declare the San Francisco earthquake to be the judgement of God, then it was geologists for suggesting the earth has changed since creation, then biologists for daring to suggest life has changed since creation, now climate scientists for daring to suggest that it hasn't been dry in Texas forever and that changes have been observed. Such loonies made up the numbers and were grafted onto conservative politics and suddenly it wasn't conservative any more. I get that you want to cheer for your team and that all team dogma must be accepted without question, but it does make otherwise intelligent people pushing their politics into other people's science look bad in a variety of ways.
It's become a mindless proxy for politics just like gun control and abortion. The issues are not considered at all, once you've chosen a side the dogma is defined. If voting in the USA was compulsory you'd have more choices, they'd be less polarisation and less need to stick with party dogma on key issues. If that happens less of the posters on this site would look like hopelessly naive idiots with no idea about the issues they say they are discussing.

Comment: Re:BS (Score 1) 320

Sony basically had no protection or planning at all. Which is what I think this was... Sony being completely irresponsible

Along with a disturbingly large number of others. We're a million quick fixes down to the point where anybody who had the faintest clue about computer networks in the 1990s would laugh at such houses of cards as the work of newbies. Some mistakes are comparable to taking a group of high school girls on a prison tour without any guards in the prison, all the cell doors open, half the lights out and no roll call at the end to see if some girls are missing.

Comment: Re:Blameless employees? (Score 1) 320

This is why large corporations perform security auditing to see if their own admins are granting themselves access to restricted data.

Do a bare metal recovery drill and you've got all that access. No problem you say, your admins don't do such things and are not prepared for the loss of a server, so you'll be fine.

If you can't trust the people with physical access to the equipment with the data on it then you have the wrong people.

Comment: Re:Blameless employees? (Score 1) 320

If you were using your company's Exchange server for gossiping and thought it was safe (i.e. the IT department would never have access to this, oh no) then you're stupid and deserve whatever fate you get.

You've just written off a huge portion of the population. Since it also applies to mobile phones etc you've probably included yourself in that portion.

Comment: Re:Sony security: strong or weak? (Score 1) 320

If we were talking about a coal mining company or something and terabytes of data going out the door would be pretty unusual

Business as usual for decades, but on tape and USB disks mostly. Seismic data sets can be large.
I get your point though and there's enough paranoia that some day a rival may get the information by mistake that any large transfers to somewhere new are likely to be noticed.

Comment: Your ideas don't stop the link click malware (Score 1) 320

But still, even with the best safeguards, where users just happily click on any old attachment, it doesn't exactly take a rare alignment of the stars to have malware planted in a network

The ones where there is only a URL and no payload astonish me - somehow just clicking on the link and letting IE loose on it is enough for the user to infect their machine with a virus. No "do you really want to run this thing as admin" box or anything - immediate infection with no other user interaction. Microsoft have been dealing with the internet for nearly two decades and such a thing can still happen with their software.

Comment: You forgot about remote desktop etc (Score 1) 320

It's very easy these days to have all the accounting software on a separate machine to the one that downloads infected emails - consider remote desktop, citrix, VNC and X windows. If you had "understanding of modern IT" you would have considered them wouldn't you?

: is not an identifier