Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Parliment Hill != The White House (Score 1) 375

by Walking The Walk (#48204827) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

It's important for non-Canadians to realize that Parliment Hill is not the White House or US Senate. Parliment in Canada is a public commons. There is no security at all on the ground of Parliment and the space is routinely used for large scale public protests and demonstrations, less than a couple of dozen yards of Parliment itself. It's a different ball game.

That's not true. You used to be able to drive onto parliament hill, which was great at Christmas to see all the lights. But in the past few years they've stopped all car traffic except cleared vehicles, they've got Ottawa police providing security along with accusations of kickbacks for the service (I can't find the link as Google is flooded with today's stories on the shooting), they have always had security within the buildings themselves (eg: security guards preventing MPs from entering the House for a vote), etc. Sure we let people in to do tours and such, but you can get a tour of the White House too. Besides, what good would it do to assassinate Harper (our Prime Minister)? He's only PM because his party formed government and he's the current head of his party. Kill him and someone else from his party just takes his place - it would be horrible, but it wouldn't stop our country the way it might if another country's head of state were killed.

Comment: Re:Why (Score 2) 375

by Walking The Walk (#48204711) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament
Well, this comes just a few days after one soldier was killed and another injured in what's being called an intentional attack by a "radicalized" Canadian. That attack was south of Montreal (about 2 hrs drive from Ottawa), so there may be no connection, but it does make one wonder. I'm sure people are worried that these two incidents are related, and might be harbinger of more to come.

Comment: Only a few days after one killed south of Montreal (Score 2) 375

by Walking The Walk (#48204667) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament
Just a few days ago in a town south of Montreal, Quebec, a man hit two soldiers with his car, killing one of them. They're saying he was "radicalized" and waited in the parking lot for 2 hours before the attack. I haven't seen anyone provide info to tie the two attacks together, but I'm sure the question will come up.

I suppose Facebooks new Safe Check would be useful today - my family have already text me to let me know they're safe, but it would be great to know none of my friends have been hurt.

Comment: Re:Blade Servers aren't "new server platforms" (Score 1) 56

by Walking The Walk (#48167385) Attached to: Making Best Use of Data Center Space: Density Vs. Isolation

Heck, 13 years ago at a Canadian federal government job we swapped our web servers for blades.

Which was pretty bleeding-edge at the time, since the first blade server was 2001. So not sure what your point about the government is - they weren't late to the party, far from it.

If I hadn't posted on this story, I would mod the above interesting. I just assumed we were at least a couple of years behind the curve. We were buying off the shelf hardware, nothing custom.

Comment: That's "around chance", not "around change" (Score 1) 75

I couldn't figure out what this part of the summary meant:

accuracy dropped to 56% (around change)

Then I watched the video in the article, where they actually say:

Participants demonstrated 56% accuracy (around chance)

i.e.: 56% is pretty close to the 50% you'd expect from just guessing. That one letter makes a big difference.

Comment: Re:Stolen by the FBI, not sold to them (Score 1) 67

by Walking The Walk (#48049319) Attached to: How Hackers Accidentally Sold a Pre-Release XBox One To the FBI

Reading comprehension is hard. The group built the mockup and sold it for $5000. The person who picked it up from them claimed to be an XBox enthusiast, but actually worked for the FBI.

Did you read to the end? I saw this quote:

While he was traveling in Prague, "I actually woke up, and lo and behold there is five grand sitting in my bank account," Wheeler said. "It came through, and we went 'OK!' and we sent it."

Where he said "we" (his group) sent it. Then I read the very next bit:

Around August 9, 2012, someone identified in the indictment as "Person A" went to Leroux's residence in Maryland and picked up the device. Person A was instructed to send the device to an address in the Seychelles. But Wheeler said he heard through the group that the package never arrived.

Where he said that "Person A was instructed to send the device" and "he heard through the group [xbox enthusiasts who paid for it] that the package never arrived." So the story says that a group paid for it, he gave it to someone with instructions to send it to that group, then the group said it never arrived. The article continues with:

According to the indictment, Person A -- whose real name Wheeler said he knows -- gave the package to the FBI.

So the guy was supposed to send it to the purchasers (who you'll recall complained that it never arrived), but he gave it to the FBI instead. There's a follow-on quote where Wheeler says the FBI bought the device, but that seems to contradicts his earlier statement that his first warning about being caught was that the purchasers complained the shipment never arrived.

Comment: Re:Need to show intent (Score 1) 274

by Walking The Walk (#48049163) Attached to: Could Maroney Be Prosecuted For Her Own Hacked Pictures?

You can be convicted for just looking at pictures.

I'm assuming you're talking about someone else (e.g.: an adult) looking at the picture a child took of herself. Which would show that person's intent to use as child porn, right? But it wouldn't by itself show the child's intent to create or distribute the image as child port. The OP's point was about "[t]aking pictures of yourself", not looking at pictures. I think the OP was saying that if the person taking the selfie didn't intend for it to be shared, then the act of taking that pic wouldn't be considered as creating child porn.

The point makes sense to me, but I'm not a lawyer (and I live in Canada), so I can't comment on whether American law works like that.

Comment: Stolen by the FBI, not sold to them (Score 1, Informative) 67

by Walking The Walk (#48046451) Attached to: How Hackers Accidentally Sold a Pre-Release XBox One To the FBI

From the way the article describes it, the FBI actually stole the group's home-made XBox-like computer. The group used stolen login credentials to get the XBox specs and built a rig to spec with parts bought from NewEgg. Apparently a group of XBox enthusiasts paid $5000 for it (they knew it was a home-made rig), but then the guy who was supposed to send it to them handed it to the FBI instead.

To summarize: Group builds a computer with same specs as XBox. Group agrees to sell it to another group, and is paid $5000. During delivery it instead ends up in the hands of the FBI.

+ - SNMP DDoS Scans Spoof Google DNS Server->

Submitted by msm1267
msm1267 (2804139) writes "The SANS Internet Storm Center is seeing SNMP scans spoofed from Google’s public recursive DNS server seeking to overwhelm vulnerable routers and other devices that support the protocol with DDoS traffic.

“The traffic is spoofed, and claims to come from Google’s DNS server. The attack is however not an attack against Google. It is likely an attack against misconfigured gateways,” said Johannes Ullrich, dean of research of the SANS Technology Institute and head of the Internet Storm Center.

Ullrich said the ISC is still investigating the scale of the possible attacks, but said the few packets that have been submitted target default passwords used by SNMP. In an update posted last night, Ullrich said the scans are sequential, indicating someone is conducting an Internet-wide scan looking for vulnerable routers and devices that accept certain SNMP commands."

Link to Original Source

+ - AT&T's Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "The net neutrality debate has been pretty binary of late. ISPs want the ability to create so-called "fast lanes," and consumers want all traffic to be treated equally. Now, AT&T is proposing another alternative: fast lanes under consumer control. Their idea would "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as Netflix, receive priority treatment over other services, such as e-mail or online video games. That's different from the FCC's current proposal, which tacitly allows Internet providers to charge content companies for priority access to consumers but doesn't give the consumers a choice in the matter." AT&T sayd, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Chip and PIN cards affected too (Score 2) 111

by Walking The Walk (#47861295) Attached to: Home Depot Confirms Breach of Its Payment Systems

I'm in Canada, and we've been using chip cards for a few years now. I just called my bank 45 minutes ago after noticing a fraudulent charge on my credit card from August 30th. Since I bought a bunch of stuff at Home Depot in May/June, I'm assuming they managed to clone my card from the stolen data. The charge was only $4.56, at a gas station halfway across the country, so I would guess that someone was testing the clone to see if it was a valid card number (maybe testing one number from a batch of 100s or 1000s, to see if the numbers were legit.)

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the fraudulent purchase itself was made using the chip. I only ever use chip + pin when making purchases, but I suppose a cloned card could use NFC (eg: PayWay) for a purchase that small, or even just the magstripe, neither of which requires them to have compromised my pin. My point is that I thought I was being safe using chip + pin, but still got hit regardless. Fortunately, banks seem to be good about this sort of thing, and my new card is on its way.

Comment: Re:just a little bigger... (Score 2) 147

by Walking The Walk (#47851107) Attached to: Restoring Salmon To Their Original Habitat -- With a Cannon
Goddamn it - Funny and Overrated shouldn't be next to each other in the moderation drop-down. Now I have to post here just to undo my mistake. Is there a way I could suggest to Slashdot devs that Overrated be moved up to be with all the other downmods at the top of the drop-down list, rather than tucked in between Funny and Underrated, so I don't hit it by mistake?

Comment: Low probability of getting hit by CME (Score 4, Informative) 212

I don't see what the fuss is about. The odds of being hit by a CME have to be quite low. Let's work it out together:
  1. To make the math simple, let's first assume CMEs can be fired in any direction.
  2. For a CME to hit the Earth, it has to occupy the same space as us at the same time.
  3. The Earth is approx 1 AU from the sun at any given time; so to hit the Earth, the CME has to hit a particular spot on a sphere of space 1 AU in radius.
  4. So the probability of a given CME hitting Earth is approximately equivalent to the ratio of half the Earth's surface area (since only half faces the Sun at a time) to the surface area of a sphere with a radius of 1 AU.

Google says:

  1. 1 AU = 149,597,871 km
  2. Surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2, so our orbital sphere has an area of approx 2.8 x 10^17 km^2.
  3. Surface area of the Earth = 510,072,000 km^2, or 5.1 x 10^8 km^2

Therefore the probability of being hit by a given CME is (2.8 x 10^17) / (5.1 x 10^8) = 5.5 x 10^-8, or a 0.0000055% chance.

Now the number of CMEs per year is actually higher than I expected, which I suppose explains why we do in fact get hit between 0 - 70 times per year. However the number of annual large CMEs is quite low, with none of the sites I visited actually agreeing on the number (most seemed to agree it's less than 5 per year in a solar maximum.) Let's say there are 5 per year. That only brings the chance of being hit by one of them up to 0.000028% per year. So if I live to be 100, the chances I'll see one in my lifetime are only 0.0028%.

caveat: These calculations ignore CME cross-section (essentially width and height) and duration (essentially length), since I couldn't find any accurate information on those. If you find those, you can factor them into these calculations by multiplying by the cross-section, multiplying by the % duration that the CME's strength is high, and multipyling by the Earth's average orbital velocity. That will modify the probility to take into account the volume of space the Earth occupies while the CME is traversing the edge of our 1 AU sphere, and how much of the surface of the sphere is touched by the CME.

Swap read error. You lose your mind.