Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Well, if you're going to push... (Score 2) 154

by saloomy (#47913197) Attached to: Court Rules the "Google" Trademark Isn't Generic
To google something is to use a company's search engine to search the web, and that fact was created by said company. Search engines existed long before google, so it wouldn't be fair to allow another search engine such as bing to present a text box and a button that said "Google It!". Trademarks don't come with usage limits.

Comment: Re:Er, that's a bit confusing (Score 5, Insightful) 166

by saloomy (#47570119) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing
Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute. I would argue that Mentally-Ill persons can not enter into such an agreement knowingly (without the consent of a care giver), and unless the drug was treating for that ailment, any mental side-effects would be difficult to discern from the original mental illness, and render the result suspect anyways.... just by $0.02

Comment: Re:Antivirus (Score 1) 122

by saloomy (#47495991) Attached to: Critroni Crypto Ransomware Seen Using Tor for Command and Control
Technically yes, it can be done, but...
1. Where is the list of all IP addresses coming from
2. Who is supposed to manage the white list, or the now very large ruleset in your large organization
3. Who is supposed to whitelist EVERY SINGLE ip address your computer talks to? Track the connections in your ASA, and you will discover that with phones, tablets, and regular users, a 50 man organization will connect to literally tens of thousands of IPs a day. Its unrealistic to whitelist IPs, especially when you can not guarantee targets will not update their DNS records when they obtain new IP addresses.
4. Forget about any P2P application.. not just file-sharing but chat and messaging programs that communicate directly to the client.

Comment: Antivirus (Score 4, Informative) 122

by saloomy (#47495839) Attached to: Critroni Crypto Ransomware Seen Using Tor for Command and Control

not trying to blame the victim, but I wonder if antivirus or anti-malware software will detect these ransomware programs? Just asking. I guess firewalls might be able to detect the Tor server/connections.

All a firewall will see is encrypted traffic from the computer in the LAN (inside) initiate a connection to a random computer (IP address) on the Internet (outside interface). Its not able to see what is being sent/received, which is the entire reason for TORs existence.. protecting you from Man in the Middle attacks, which in this case, the firewall would be.

Comment: Re:The eventual redefinition of "privacy" and the (Score 2) 89

by saloomy (#47251785) Attached to: Help Crowd-FOIA Stingray Usage Across America
You make a few good points Maga. What I meant to say is that the "spirit" of the founding laws that coincide with American ideals against unlawful, unwarranted search and seizure are defined to protect the public, and the individual from a questioning government. Basically, the government can not come into your home, and search for without a warrant showing just cause.

The fact that our digital culture has mechanized mass-surveilance, the likes of which were surely unimaginable when the founding laws were laid down, does not change the intent of the law. The government has to show just cause before it can search your effects or your person. Mass surveillance is specifically counter to that intent. There is no just cause for searching people at random, and that again is specifically what the law is written to keep from occurring.

However, if you post on FB, thats information you are choosing to share with a corporate entity. If they in turn share that data, its either in accordance with their policies, the law, or in violation of them, which means you have cause to lay a claim. Just like you can not kiss someone in public and expect privacy, you can not expect to post information to FB and expect privacy. If your friends can see it, they too can share it, which is not in violation of any contract or law.

The chance now is for people to rise up and assert when the information intended to be secure (such as encrypted data to another person), is syphoned and decrypted en masse; the government is in violation of both the "spirit" and the letter of the law.

Comment: Re:The eventual redefinition of "privacy" and the (Score 5, Insightful) 89

by saloomy (#47251499) Attached to: Help Crowd-FOIA Stingray Usage Across America
But that means this is a chance for the nation (and by nation I mean the public), to stand up for what they believe to be right and true in this regard. As an American, you can ask yourself what the freedoms and "spirits" of the founding laws intended, and fight to make it so. So often on slashdot, there are comments that ring with "it can't ever happen, the MAN is too powerful for us peons to do anything to change this". I always feel like I should (but seldom do) remind those folks of the Civil Rights movement. A group of citizens rose up and stood in the face of so many gov't entities and achieved their goal. I also feel that happened when President Obama ran in 2008. The results have been a little underwhelming vs. what the youth of the day thought they would get, but they did achieve it. I think the Civil Rights movement of my generation (30's) and the one that follows will be digital rights, privacy, and freedom to conduct your business without the watchful eye of big brother giving you a second glance, or a nod of approval.

Comment: Re: OR (Score 1) 250

From an iPhone on AT&T IPv6 does not work. Neither does it work on my Uverse connection. You can test ipv6 functionality by going to From a hosting perspective, no one will want to use an IPv6 server unless their customers/clients/users can access it. The last-mile retail carriers need to implement v6 first. The situation is getting close to truly exhausting the v4 pool, and it's going to be too little too late very soon. Try and request an org, as, and v4 addresses from ARIN. You better be good at proving an ABSOLUTE NEED for them. They don't have any large blocks left. V6 isn't the same hassle, they hand them out like candy, so it's not a lasyness issue. It's Network admins not knowing how to configure it, old equipment, and end-user inaccessability that keep IaaS companies from switching.

Comment: Re:...and this is our cue... (Score 0) 190

by saloomy (#46810847) Attached to: Eyes Over Compton: How Police Spied On a Whole City
Count the camera's around you... in 100 ft even. Just imagine how many CCDs are being made every day, how many hard drive platters are being created every day! The era of privacy has passed. We will be forever more in a surveillance state. I think our children will be far more accepting of this change than we are, simply because its new. 25 years from now, being "caught on film" doing something we don't want others to know about will be harder and harder. Its a math problem more cameras = more surveillance.

Comment: Re:Who'll spit on my burger?! (Score 0) 870

by saloomy (#46580345) Attached to: Job Automation and the Minimum Wage Debate
I understand the project made financial sense, and Im not disputing that it did decrease marginal costs. What I am saying is that when you can automate a function, there are more factors to consider than the replaced employee's wages. The drive to automation is to scale efficiently, which humans can not do.

The main driver for this project was not the cost of the technology vs. the cost of the payroll, it was the ancillary benefits that come with automation that humans just can not match. Thats my point (in response to the point of the article).

Again. I understand it increases the bottom line, but it does so in a way that doubling the payroll could not have achieved. There is a diminishing return on the number of employees you can have driving around a warehouse in a propane truck, and yes there is a limit on the number of these forklifts you can hire, but the objective was to maximize shipping capacity of the warehouse. These units were better than the humans at that.

Comment: Re:Don't raise wages. Demand lower prices. (Score 2, Insightful) 870

by saloomy (#46579907) Attached to: Job Automation and the Minimum Wage Debate
Price has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with (perceived) supply / demand.

And unless you live in a dictatorship, you are not allowed to "demand" anything for any price, just as I am not allowed to "demand" you purchase any particular good or servi... oh wait. I forgot we passed the ACA.

Comment: Re:Who'll spit on my burger?! (Score 2, Interesting) 870

by saloomy (#46579871) Attached to: Job Automation and the Minimum Wage Debate
Well if you ignore the fact that the project didn't save money-spent overall, then yes, its about costs.

What you are forgetting to take into account is that you get significantly more production, at a higher rate of accuracy with machines. In some cases (not all), the accuracy and production increase is simply unfeasible with a human workforce.
Its like asking how many postmen would it take to deliver all the world's email. There simply wouldn't be enough resources to do the job, regardless of cost.

Comment: Re:Who'll spit on my burger?! (Score 5, Insightful) 870

by saloomy (#46579681) Attached to: Job Automation and the Minimum Wage Debate
I used to work in the IT dept. for a company that replaced forklift drivers with highly automated forklifts Vimeo: ( that were able to load trucks. The justification was never the cost of labor, but the increased accuracy in the supply chain, the ability to "house keep" (i.e. moving product bound for shipping close to the dock door it was headed out of, to increase maximum warehouse capacity by reducing average trip times); during the slow hours, as well as reduced damage to product, equipment and the facility. Automation is not about cost, its about having a machine do some work BETTER than workers. Arguing the cost is like arguing that cars are better at moving goods than humans because it costs less per mile to drive a car than it does to pay someone to carry your good. It does cost less, but thats not the point. Automation can scale much faster and increase accuracy, without increasing costs. Thats the point of automation. The benefits were obvious to anyone who had ever seen a mis-ship report or calculated the % of accidents involving a forklift. These units delivered

New systems generate new problems.