Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Technically correct?? (Score -1) 82

by bennetthaselton (#48469123) Attached to: Clarificiation on the IP Address Security in Dropbox Case
That's interesting. Possible counter-points: (1) It could be argued that if the mayor accessed her work Dropbox account from her home IP address, then that introduces her home IP address into the public record, and if she didn't want that, she shouldn't have accessed it from home. (2) I don't think revealing a person's IP address is quite as bad as revealing a person's home address, because there are "attacks" you can mount against someone once you know their home address (e.g. robbing or vandalizing their house) but the point of the article is that there's relatively little you can do to someone just by knowing their IP address. (3) As I noted, someone could also get the mayor's home IP address anyway just by finding a way to contact her and telling her to visit a certain website.

I don't think it achieves anything to group all of someone's personal information under a heading like "PII" with the implication that it should all be treated the same way. Some things deserve more privacy protection than others, depending on what harmful things someone would be able to *do* with that information.

Comment: Re:No. Go away, babblemouth (Score -1) 82

by bennetthaselton (#48469061) Attached to: Clarificiation on the IP Address Security in Dropbox Case
I think it has to be interpreted in context; what he presumably means here is that the IP address can be used to help identify specific computers (with a certain degree of probability, and maybe depending on whether the ISP has retained customer logs), but emphasizes that that's all it can be used for, and knowing the IP address does not make it easier for an attacker to breach the system's security, so it wasn't a valid reason to reject the FOIA request.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1054

by s.petry (#48468835) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You overlook the possibility that it might be perfectly legal to run down a suspect and shoot them if they become aggressive. In other words, you might find that the officer was 100% at fault here, but still acted completely lawfully.

I did not overlook this at all, you are inventing something that never happened to continue your belief.

No. I'm arguing that if you can't even get the grand jury to charge the man, you have absolutely no hope of convicting him in a criminal court.

The grand jury does not charge a man, sorry. You need to do some homework on what a Grand Jury is responsible for and what their role is.

I still don't think it is worth throwing the officer under the bus to achieve the systemic change.

Holding someone accountable for their actions is not throwing him under the bus, stop repeating this same untrue statement in various forms. Nobody forced the officer to chase down and fire bullets into the guy. The first and probably the second are not being questioned. Perhaps even three we can say was justifiable defense. The remaining 9-10 bullets are the excessive force, and pretty obvious excessive force which you seemed to agree with above. This is amplified in his interview yesterday where he says flat out "he was a very large black guy and I was in fear" followed by "I felt it was my duty to chase and keep firing at him" (those are rough quotes, not verbose but you can check their validity).

History also shows that we are moving in a general direction towards better rights for minorities. Maybe it won't be this event - the rioting and unsympathetic victim makes it hard for Obama to find political cover. But I'm optimistic that eventually police departments will be reformed.

Only if you are cherry pick. Police violence against civilians has escalated, not the other way around.. and yes most of this violent behavior is against minorities. Compare the amount of minorities in the criminal justice system to whites and you see a huge disparity. Compare economic opportunity between cultures, etc... Sure, some of the problems are self generated but not all of them and not even most of them.

For posterity, I don't support either end of the extreme. The cop in this case was not angelic, and the crowds are not altruistic. If you study Hegalian dialectic, the reason for these things is obvious.

Comment: Re:Need automatic "loser pays" in jurisprudence (Score 1) 115

by Rich0 (#48468667) Attached to: Hacker Threatened With 44 Felony Charges Escapes With Misdemeanor

I think a potential solution is to have the court mediate costs.

There is a lawsuit. The court evaluates the size of the claims, and determines what a reasonable total legal expenditure is for a case of that size. Obviously a billion dollar patent lawsuit will involve more legal fees than a $100 bent fender dispute. The court then divides that amount in two and allocates half for each party.

The two parties then can select lawyers who bill their services to the court. It would be illegal for any lawyer to collect a fee directly from a client to support a trial. The goal would be to avoid making finances a factor in the outcome of a trial.

After the conclusion of the case the court would pay the reward to the winner immediately out of the state treasury. The loser would then become indebted to the state for the amount of the judgment plus costs. Apportionment of costs might not be 100% to either side.

There would be no games with collections on judgments - the IRS can go after the loser just as they do after tax evaders. If the lower doesn't have any money, the winner still gets their settlement. That combined with the inevitable changes in the laws would get rid of a lot of legal abuses. If losses by patent holding companies with no assets cost the state and not just innovators, then you'll see patent reform in no time.

The biggest benefit is getting rid of the whole pay to win system we have today.

Comment: Re:Shyeah, right. (Score 1) 255

by Rich0 (#48468113) Attached to: Is LTO Tape On Its Way Out?

You're talking about a used market to start, and a drive that takes up quite a bit of space physically (it makes sense in a rack, but not so much otherwise).

Then $20/tb is not much cheaper than you get with hard drives.

At that price point the tape drive almost makes sense if you have a fair bit to back up. However, a more reasonable price point would be 6TB per tape at $30 per tape and $100 for the drive new. Once upon a time that was the sort of price point tape drives ran for in the consumer space. I doubt we'll ever see it again.

Comment: Re:Microsoft Windows only (Score 1) 141

by Rich0 (#48468005) Attached to: Highly Advanced Backdoor Trojan Cased High-Profile Targets For Years

You're focusing on a specific piece of software, and missing the reason the software was written in the first place.

I'm focusing on what I quoted in my response.

You quoted, "targeted attacks like this are OS agnostic."

Then you said "In the case of Regin (did you even read the lead before shooting your idiot mouth?) it is not OS agnostic."

He didn't say that Regin was OS agnostic. He said that targeted attacks are OS agnostic. Heck, you can perform a targeted attack without the use of a computer at all.

The people who wrote Regin weren't out to break Windows. They were out to obtain information. If it was easier to obtain that information by sending in ninjas at night, they would have done that.

If the sole point of your whole argument is that Regin only targets Windows, well, congratulations, I guess you can win the internet tonight. :)

Comment: Re:ENIAC wasn't the first (Score 1) 116

by serviscope_minor (#48467547) Attached to: How the World's First Computer Was Rescued From the Scrap Heap

Except for those pesky,slow mechanical relays... and total lack of conditional branches.

Firstly, the thermionic valves of ENIAC are about as far from transistors as electromechanical realays (bar speed and vacuum channel transistors). Second, the Z4 had conditional branches.

The Z4 is far more like a modern computer architecturally than ENIAC, and given that one can make the logic elements out of whatever is to hand. Zuse AG later sold transistorised versions of the Z4.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1054

by s.petry (#48467181) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

I'm not a lawyer, so you are getting way beyond me. I think focusing on the individuals in this case misses the point completely.

I don't believe you need to be a lawyer to see that you are incorrect in your opinion. Let me present why I believe this way, feel free to correct the logic if you believe I am incorrect.

1. The individual took an action and is responsible for their action. There are no reports that indicate that anyone from his department ordered him to chase and shoot an unarmed suspect. The only case that could possibly be presented is the officer's action.
a. Was training, department policy, culture, or other factors are involved in the officer's decision?
i. If yes, change in the factors involved should occur (revamp training, counseling to change culture, etc... (would most likely result in charges being dropped against the officer.)
ii. If "no", the officer should be charged with some criminal offense.
2. If the officer had received orders we would loop back to the first item with the issuing officer on the hook, but that did not happen so we can not argue that case.

Where we seem to have a disconnect is that you appear to assume that if an officer is charged, he is automatically guilty of the charge. The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, it's to issue a finding for whether or not the officer can face charges and define what the officer can be charged with. (Interestingly, Federal grand juries return 99.9% of the time for some charges to proceed while all other Law enforcement agencies return less than .1% to proceed with some charge.

In cases where there are institutional problems which were impacting to an event, charges are generally dropped against individuals and moved to the institutions (this is how the legal process works). Institutions fight hard to prevent that from happening, because this places them in civil liability for wrong doing.

In other words, with no charges filed against the officer there will be no action, no change, business as usual. No determination will, or can, be made as to whether or not institutional problems resulted in the officer actions. The next time a cop feels it's his duty to gun down a suspect we will be back to the same arguments. We have effectively changed nothing and blocked dialogue because of the grand jury decision.

Claiming that the DOJ is going to take any action after the fact runs contrary to nearly all history (including recent history). Nothing is impossible, but history demonstrates that unless there is incentive to make change it won't happen.

Comment: Re: Ob (Score 1) 429

by s.petry (#48466823) Attached to: The Schizophrenic Programmer Who Built an OS To Talk To God

"Older"? How about "only" spelling, when dealing with a computer program (primarily in Unix systems) as was referenced. The word has a meaning going pretty far back, but has never changed.>Daemon stands for Disk and Execution Monitor.

A daemon is a long-running background process that answers requests for services. The term originated with Unix, but most operating systems use daemons in some form or another. In Unix, the names of daemons conventionally end in "d". Some examples include inetd, httpd, nfsd, sshd, named, and lpd.

Comment: Re:Shyeah, right. (Score 1) 255

by s.petry (#48466683) Attached to: Is LTO Tape On Its Way Out?

I didn't miss the point at all. The economics of tape backup has _never_ favored home users over businesses. Tapes have never been that expensive, but the drives are a huge amount of capital.

I think you missed my point regarding VTL though, which is that multi-site replication of virtual tapes is subject to the same issues of corruption as replicated volumes, or any other backup file format that remains only on disk. For economics, we have moved some of our backups to VTL but these are the convenience backups and not our data that needs real DR (long retention and guaranteed data integrity).

Comment: Re:ENIAC wasn't the first (Score 1) 116

by serviscope_minor (#48466637) Attached to: How the World's First Computer Was Rescued From the Scrap Heap

Yes, but he didn't fail, because that's not what he said. He said first electronic programmable computer. The Z1 (and successors) were electromechanical. Still impressive in their own right, true, but nothing like the electronic computers that were invented later.

Indeed, the Z1--Z4 were not much like the electronic computers built shortly later. They were in fact much more like the electronic computers built *decades* later.

Bear in mind that Eniac was a decimal machine, whereas the Z? machines were binary. ENIAC was an integer based machine, whereas the Z? machines had hardware floating point and for all except the Z1, this included denormals and exceptions. ENIAC was programmed using plugs and switches where as the Z? machines had machine code stored on tape with overlapped pipelined instruction decoding.

In almost every way, the Z? machines were much more like modern computers than ENIAC ever was.

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.