Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Lasers and aircraft... (Score 1) 123

The other issue is triangulating kinda relies on either continuous or multiple transmission. It mostly boils down to you observer the transmission form multiple points, and measure the received energy at each. Next you do a bunch of math to figure out where the transmission likely originated from based on the different energy detected at the receiving stations. Doing that with accuracy to handful of meters as would be needed to quickly id a drone operator and respond is kinda hard when

1) the detection stations are far a part
2) there are structures or land forms that might absorb EM (you will need more than just the inverse square law)
3) you don't have a lot of receive station density. (cells can be quite large in rural areas)
4) you don't know what EM to tune to
5) dynamic conditions changes in atmosphere etc

The technology to auto pilot or simply execute on simple instruction is getting smaller lighter and cheaper. Already some consumer drones can proceed to a set GPS coordinates by themselves. If you don't need to be in constant or even frequent contact with the drone but only need to occasionally send a quick "GOTO $lat,$long,$altitude" it might be very hard to track you down.

Comment Legal Standing (Score 4, Interesting) 144

Another standing based evasion of the 4th amendment. As long has you have to prove a negative you have personally been the victim of a clandestine program or any government program for that matter the Constitution might as well be toilette paper.

All they have to do is classify the records and its essentially game over.

What we need to do is push for legislation that lowers the bar for legal standing in cases against the government. It should be very low. Once the program is proven to exist it should be open to challenge on the complain it violates any other laws or violates anyone's Constitutional rights. The fact that its supposed to be a government by the people and for the people, means that we the people should have automatic standing anytime the government is violated laws or the Constitution we the people enacted. The grounds should be a failure to lawfully govern, the harm being undermining societies faith in law.

This is the only way we are going make any headway.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 0) 67

Every time I hear some lefty telling me we need more government in more regulation to prevent abuses by corporation I am reminded of this stuff and laugh out loud. So called democratic countries of Western Europe and North America already have governments that are more abusive than any corporate ever could be.

Comment Reasonably (Score 1) 194

There offer is reasonable. Separation of duties is as important as all the things the original poster listed. The company is to big for the OP to be a cow boy, not saying he will but the surest way to make sure he does not go down that path is not to allow. The OP should realize that protection runs both ways. When something happens that was unauthorized he won't be on the list of suspects. I am assuming that the EA isn't also CIO.

Finally its the OP's job as EA to design a survivable architecture, that includes on that survives him leaving for any reason. Not having direct access means he will have to make sure teams working under him have the knowledge and skill sets to get the job done. That might mean training people (sending them boot camps etc), adding people, replacing people. All three of those options are sometimes hard to get done but they need to get done and they won't when the EA can just ride in on his or her white horse and do it themselves. Which by the way means you are taking your eye off the strategic objectives you are supposed to be working on and doing tactical.

EA isn't a tech job. Its a management/analyst role that demands a technical background. It will and should take your hands off the tech. Yes you still need to keep up on new tech, but in the what can it do, what is good for way not in the, this how you implement this type of abstract interface or here is how you install memory in a SAN controller way.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

And why do techbro libertarians really not take the time to think their statements through?

Its perfectly thought thru. Biggest problem with the free market is the imbalance of information. If everyone had perfect information than we would need almost no regulation of the market place at all. We could all make great decisions all the time.

So Yes as a "techbro libertarian" disclosure requirements are one of the few types of regulations I'd be willing to support.

Comment Re:Judging by the story so far... (Score 2, Insightful) 367

if banging some housewives while single is wrong

Yes its wrong unless its your wife OR her husband is fully aware and agreed to it.

Marriage is a contract, one with certain implied conditions unless otherwise specified. One of those is fidelity. Marriage is also a huge investment by both parties in terms of time and often money and property. If infidelity would make the marriage arrangement unacceptable to a party if they knew and that information is kept from them they are being induced to act against their interest continuing to invest. Put that way cheating on a spouse in secret sounds awful close to the legal definition of FRAUD!

If you are the other man, other woman, web site operator facilitating the hookups you're an accomplice.

trust is shattered today over something from the past which is irrelevant today.

Its not irrelevant, our society bars all sorts of people from all sorts of things based on prior crimes.


My wife leaves me

Maybe I even had told my wife "hey, before meeting you I used to bag housewives"

If you knows your past than I don't understand why she would be leaving you.

My problem with AM is the secrecy. If people want to have an open marriage that is the business. AM however specifically sold the secrecy aspect of it. It would be like if you sold guns with stickers on them that said "Great for Armed Robbery!" There is nothing wrong with selling a tool, gun, or running a hookup website. There is something wrong when you market it specifically for misuse or abuse of others.

Similarly (secret)Adultery ought to be a crime. It does cause real harm to society.

Comment Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score 1) 254

isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?

Your assertion is false and the market has already demonstrated this. Many producers consider it in their interest to label and to create labels customers understand. They do this to differentiate their product.

Hence you see all kinds of labels some that have fairly well established and specific meanings that you can go look up with an industry group like "organic", "gluten free", and "fat free" and others less so like 'GMO free" etc.

Some customers want labeling and will pay for that. Some manufacturers will go above and beyond legal labeling requirements because that way they can capture the customers that want that. Personally I don't look for most of those optional labels.

However if we did not have mandated food labeling, you bet I would be willing to pay a premium at the grocery store to those manufactures that are willing to disclose what is in the product. After all even if manufacturer A has to put contains upto %30 saw dust on their label and manufacturer B has no label I am going to either pass on the product category entirely or go with A because B absence of label leads me to conclude they probably have even more saw dust than A or they'd be making some effort to inform me that they don't.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 3, Interesting) 705

not changing anything about how corporations have to secure data, or even (god forbid!) be punished for having sloppy security.

And why should it? For the sake of argument do you think the government should tell you that you MUST install a home security system, have dead bolts on every exterior door, require exterior doors be steel or solid wood, limit the side of windows to no more than 1" by 1" or require bars? If you violate any of these rules on your structure fine or punish you? Should we lighten up the sentences for "breaking and entering" or even burglary?

Personally I think with certain exceptions like public Utilities etc that already enjoy a special relationship with government and a captive market, that companies ought to be allowed to have whatever security posture they like. They should simply have to be honest about it with consumers. Government ought to do one of the few things its Constitutionally supposed to do and set some standards of measure.

Develop some NIST definitions for overall information security postures. If companies then want to claim they have a 'Double plus good can't hack me bro' rating there is a way to prove that. Then if one of these breaches happens and its done in a way that should not have been possible while in compliance like 'plain text data on laptop found on bus' we would all be able to go after them for contract fraud or false advertising etc.

Additionally we should have some disclosure laws, just like food labels there need to be some standardized categories and forms companies that maintain any information that is personally identifiable other than firstname, lastname, current address, billing address, and primary phone number, should be required to disclose that on a standardized and both electronically readable and human readable format. Maybe a nice TML or INI like file.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 1) 303

Hillary Clinton should know what a "server wipe" is because she was in charge of the people who were managing this

Personally I find it hard to accept Hillary as a former Secretary of State would not know a lot more than she lets on. Its difficult to imagine she could have done her job effectively otherwise. That said she does not need to know the details of what "wipe" means in terms vs say a simple delete.

The question could have plainly been understood as "did you or someone in your employ attempt erase the contents of the server before handing it over and how do you explain that as anything other than destruction of evidence."

You don't need to know anything about filesystems, databases, disk sectors, pointers, logical addressing, block sizes, etc to understand the important aspects of the question. She chose to evade the question and the best she could come up with to feign an embarrassing degree of ignorance in the form of bad joke. Honestly I would have better about her as the next POTUS if her answer had been "no comment".

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 5, Insightful) 303

No we don't know if she violated any laws yet, although it looks more and more like she probably did. We do know she at least violated some government practice documents, she was not obligated to comply with but should have.

The issue isn't if she broke the law or not. There are bunch of people that would enjoy seeing Clinton in the slam but it won't affect things much beyond that. What matters is she should be losing this election. She was the Secretary of State for the United States of America. She either could have and should have recognized that she was dealing with sensitive information classified or not and cared enough about operation security to do something about it.

So she knew or should have known the risks of E-mail its not 1998 anymore, everyone has heard the post card analogy with inter-domain mail. If she did not know she should have people around her to tell her that. If she did not listen or only select a bunch of yes men and women that is also a problem.

Even if all the operational security issues and risks of e-mail were a surprise to her, you'd think her behavior would have very suddenly improved when Bradly Manning and a few other events took place, again nope, so we are left with willful ignorance, or gross negligence. Crime or not, prosecutable or not, there isn't a good spin you can put on it. Even Her own justifications about carry multiple devices etc have been contradicted, she has been evasive about it and her story keeps changing so she is only compounding it with lies and bad ones. She isn't a good candidate to lead the country pure and simple.

Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.