Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:RAID? (Score 1) 92

by NatasRevol (#46779243) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

This. People just don't get this.

Typical smallish RAID array is 16 drives.

RAID 5 IOPS for 7.2k drives - 675
RAID 5 IOPS for 15k drives - 1642
RAID 5 IOPS for SSD drive - 84,211

http://www.thecloudcalculator....

In an environment running lots of small disk IO, like having a VM or fifty, only one of the above will give you good performance.

Comment: Re:To the point... (Score 0) 147

by NatasRevol (#46728215) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator
Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the
underlying CFAA violation

If that's not a 'not guilty' by a court that's not passing actual judgement, I don't know what is.

He did so by tricking AT&T's servers into thinking he was someone other than himself.

That doesn't mean UNauthorized.

he knew he wasn't entitled to access the information.

And yet there's no legal requirement for 'entitlement'. Just unauthorized access.

Again, there was no authorization process in AT&T's system, so he could NOT have accessed without authorization. AT&T's systems were set up with explicit full authorization in place. Everybody can access everything. Just enter the code.

Comment: Re:To the point... (Score 4, Interesting) 147

by NatasRevol (#46727965) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

Well, not me, but the appeals court certainly did.
This paragraphy is on page 10 of the ruling:

The charged portion of the CFAA provides that
“[w]hoever . . . intentionally accesses a computer without
authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby
obtains . . . information from any protected computer . . . shall
be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.” 18
U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C). To be found guilty, the Government
must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) access
edwithout authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a
(3)protected computer and(4) thereby obtained information

Then his paragraph is on page 12 of the ruling:

Because neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator
Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the
underlying CFAA violation or any overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy in New Jersey, venue was improper on count
one.

I guess you're smarter than them.

Also, if passing a phone identifier to a query of a web server could access all this information, is that really a 'protected computer'? I'd say no.

MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving

Working...