Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fuck That Shit (Score 1) 50

by s.petry (#48465069) Attached to: The People Who Are Branding Vulnerabilities

The people doing the branding of these things are often vultures trying to scavenge money. (You could say garnering reputation, but the ultimate purpose is identical). Media latches on to anything that sounds catchy and pushes today's agenda. Fear mongering is a good thing to the authoritarians who offer us a rescue from the bogey man at every turn.

We had the one guy this year claiming to have billions of email addresses and passwords he "stole" acquired from "Russian Hackers!!!11!!!ONE!!". To see if you were on the list you had to PAY HIM MONEY, in addition to providing him your credentials! Some of the vulnerabilities were valid and long overdue in terms of needing a fix, but others were mostly noise like the Bash scare.

IT pros need to just boycott these people trying to maximize personal profit from a vulnerability. Don't use the names these clowns assign to them, and treat the bugs and exploits for what they really are. Again, sometimes valid and sometimes not. I would have much rather seen people posting fixes and tests for the SSL heartbeat bug than read people bickering about who they thought was the most important person in the world for finding the bug, or who the worst developer in the world was for not implementing the fix.


Comment: Re:Shyeah, right. (Score 1) 145

by s.petry (#48465025) Attached to: Is LTO Tape On Its Way Out?

You're absolutely right. Just a few weeks ago I decided to look into backing up my home storage to tape.

Do you really believe GP was talking about a home system with a few computers worth of data? Sorry, but you are not going to be lunking around HDs for backups after manually bar-coding, labeling, and cataloging them all for a decent sized business. LTO is surely not something a home user would find much benefit in, but on the business side there are numerous benefits. Lots of factors involved, but generally for even a small business it's worth the added data security even when it may not be required.

In the business side, some executives likes to believe that copies of data in different Datacenters are all you need for DR. It's cheap! This works great until you have a replicated corruption that you can't recover from and lose years worth of data. VTL is an option, but it's expensive and not many people are using it. And You still have the same issue with corruption using VTL as you do with real data.

Comment: Hell NO! and WTF is wrong with moderation lately? (Score 0) 145

by s.petry (#48464679) Attached to: Is LTO Tape On Its Way Out?

Hang on, I'll get to the mod comment in a moment. First things first, which is a complete line of crap if you are dealing with medium to large amounts of data in your DR plan and have a long term requirement for DR. Keep in mind that the person you are responding to is talking about long term DR strategy that dates back decades.

I'm not sure which world you are living in where 10 year old hard drives require less space than LTO, but this is not physically possible. Are you trying to claim that you are using today's higher density drives through a time warp, or that you really have no experience with legacy system DR and are only working with current technology? No matter how you slice it you are dishonest, so let me go with the first assumption. SSDs were available about 10 years ago, but there is no way anyone in a production environment used them for more than testing or highly disposable purposes. The sizes back then were the same or less than SCSI (256GB in "production" drives), reliability was atrocious, and quite honestly we banned them during testing because they lasted days maximum in our high performance compute environment where they could have been the most beneficial. The footprints for the drives were exactly that of SCSI, which is about 4 times the area of an LTO tape. Data per cubic inch did not compare, and this is simple math to check.

So maybe you are not referring to SSD, maybe you are referring to Spindled disks from 10 years ago? If that is the case, please explain to us how you are shipping boxes of HDs off to Iron Mountain for safe keeping and ensuring that the heads are not damaged?

Next, you are not doing much in terms of mass data DR with hard drives no matter which HDs you are using. I can buy an IBM 35xx with 8-32 read/write heads and 256 cartridges in the chassis. I can pull out LTO1 tapes from 15 years ago and read them natively and I can read and write faster than any hard drive on the market. Doing this with hard drives you are going to have to go to Ebay and hope like hell you can buy a JBOD/DAS device compatible with your drives, then hope like hell you can figure out how to import the sets if you are using something like VFS/VCS and not standard LVM. Good grief, it's not "easier" or "faster" by any stretch of the imagination unless you are responsible for very little data. Generally the people using LTO are backing up a good amount of data on average. We have 28 Petabytes on line. Probably only 5-6 Petabytes are backed up regularly, but go ahead and try this on your "removable hard drive" backup strategy.

In other words, the only way your arguments can be valid is if you are responsible for very little data or perhaps you really don't have to worry about DR as you originally claimed. Many of us deal with Government contracts that require full scale DR, and many large businesses have similar requirements, and thes requirements include retention of 7+ years.

Not counting legacy systems, we have been migrating some data to multi-site DR (not full DR) to save money. Plucking hard drives is _still_ a horrible idea even given the higher density newer drives. Retention on a removable HD does not, and can not match the lifespan for an LTO tape which is designed specifically for a long lifespan.

Now to the point about moderation. I pointed this out the other day in a submission and a thread, moderation has been absolutely wretched lately. Nothing against this guys post getting moderated "Interesting" because it should generate comments. The person he responded to receives NO moderation and should be moderated as "insightful" since he is obviously involved in large scale DR. A whopping 2 posts have been moderated in this thread, and one contains wrong information for anyone curious about large scale DR.

It's not the incorrect posts being moderate that's the problem, it's the lack of moderation on posts correcting bad information.. and the lack of moderation overall in the last week or so that is the problem. For the last week moderation has amounted to an explicit bias, of no benefit or incentive for progressive dialogue (which is the whole goddamn point of the moderation system).

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1013

by s.petry (#48463657) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

How is it making him a scape goat if the charges issued are valid, relevant, and rational? As I said, the guy does not need to be booked for murder or manslaughter to force a systemic change with the behavior of law enforcement. A simple statement from the Grand Jury that "charges will be allowed for excessive force" would suffice.

If as you say the department(s) are at fault this will come out investigation for the use of excessive force. Legally, it would most likely result in the charges being dropped for the officer and the attention being diverted to the department. Where it should be also, but we can't seem to tackle numerous problems simultaneously during a legal process.

In reality, this is making the department the scape goat for the officers actions and not the other way around. Unfortunately this is the way it has to work due to legal precedent. If the departments training changes and future issues occur, then individuals can, and should, be held accountable for their actions.

Complacency I'm sure you will agree will result in zero change.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1013

by s.petry (#48463149) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You either know, or are pretending to know, about forensics. I am not trained in this field, and so have to go with the best source of data that I have available to me

You don't need to be a forensics expert to read an autopsy report and make valid observations. It is equivalent to saying you can't read a basic math problem unless you are a Mathematician for a living. It's an obvious cop out, serving to support a delusion.

Correct. If we don't like how he behaved in this situation, and he behaved according to his training, then the training needs to change.

If the officer behaved incorrectly there would be charges of some kind. A lack of charges means no wrong doing what so ever, and will result in NO change in training or behavior.

I don't know if the officer should be in jail for murder, I didn't interview him and that makes a difference. I do know that his behavior went well beyond what is required to make an arrest. This would be true even assuming everything the officer said was true and there is reason to doubt some of his claims. And before you say it, the answer is "No". You don't have to be a Lawyer or Judge to compare statements and read testimony to determine where stories conflict or are incredible.

Comment: Re:Hmmm ... (Score 0) 372

by s.petry (#48462937) Attached to: The Schizophrenic Programmer Who Built an OS To Talk To God
Keep on digging that hole deeper. A "regular commenter" as you originally claimed would have a consistent pattern in contributing (see the first part of 1.). A few posts 8 months ago, then a month prior, then a few months prior, does not indicate any 'regularity' or especially with the same space between individual instances.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1013

by s.petry (#48462907) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Your version of events does not seem as credible to me.


Wholly fuck man, the 12 shots being fired has been the only consistent piece of information we had. You doubt "my version" which excluded everything except for the first shot and the amount of rounds we KNOW hit the victim! At the point he started back peddling the cop should have stopped firing, but we have at least 3 rounds hitting the victim (due to autopsy again) where the angle indicates the guy was falling down and a lack of powder burns indicates that these shots were from a reasonable range. This is basic goddamn science, not a lesson in duality and metaphysics.

It's never excessive to defend yourself, and it asks too much from someone who is actively defending themselves to think completely clearly.

POLICE ARE TRAINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND DEAL WITH ADRENOLINE! You are trying to claim that a police officer, who receives years of training, who loses self control is not worthy of reprimand either. Bullshit.

As a veteran I know what they face to a very large degree, I also know the training that I had vs. what today's police and military have in training. They are being taught that the public is the enemy, I gave the information above and you chose to ignore it.

Comment: Re:Also ban cars (Score 1) 167

by s.petry (#48462547) Attached to: Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

Naming fallacies eliminates a class of mistakes so that more of our limited intelligence and attention-span can be applied to the actual discussion.

No, no it's not. You are demonstrating the same ignorance for logic that you claim others lack with this statement. Your are attempting to claim that your accusation of fallacy will somehow defend the original fallacy, and it does not.

Cameron's arguments are an appeal to emotion. His particular appeal is so common that we have given a name to it (as we have historically done with the several common appeals), called "save the children". This person points out another appeal to emotion, based on what is "the terrorists are gonna get you!" arguments.

Even if the person used a slippery slope, this would not negate the fallacy arguments from Cameron that they are arguing against. This is the point of debate and discourse, to flesh out "why the original argument is nothing but an appeal to emotion."

That said, the person did not use a Slippery Slope argument but an argument based on historical facts. If you had asked for the history I'm sure the person could have provided you search clues.

Your ignorance to history does not make his argument a slippery slope, it demonstrates that you are ignorant. Your claim of fallacy does not invalidate the original appeals to emotion that Cameron used. Your disconnection with logic and rhetoric indicate that you are either a shill, or a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1013

by s.petry (#48460673) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

According to the grand jury findings, he ceased firing once the victim stopped moving toward him.

Your statement can not be valid, because the officer alleged that he was leaning into the car when the first shot was fired. He could not move forward any further at that time, he could only move backward. Your statement has no bearing in logic or reason, at all. Testimony does not provide reason for 12 bullets being fired. A person back peddling is no longer a threat.

Further, I requested YOUR definition of excessive force, not the grand jury decision. At what point to you believe police force becomes excessive? If you truly believe that every encounter requires cops to unload full clips into people, I would ask you to turn yourself in to a psychiatric ward immediately.

The most obvious potential non-lethal actions does not involve a weapon at all, it would have been the cop driving away and calling for backup. He is in a car, the unarmed person was on foot.

That might very well be the most reasonable action to take going forward, and maybe that should be incorporated into police training. As long as the officer's actions were in line with currently established procedures, that does not make his actions criminal.

The whole point of these cases is to determine where things went wrong. Obviously lots of shit went wrong, but without even a reprimand for excessive force how much change will ensue? None, and you know it! In other words, that statement is complete horse shit.

The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.