Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment 1916 called (Score 3, Insightful) 439

1916's Marxists called. They want to remind you that central planning through the use of math and science was their idea before it was your idea. And its genius. It will surely work this time too. Yeah. For sure. This time.

There are so very many things wrong with this "linear programming" idea but the chief one is this: optimizing for GDP is NOT a valid sociopolitical objective.

Valid objectives are things like: individual liberty, peace, citizen happiness either individual or weighted percentile. While some of these objectives correlate with high GDP, some do not and none exhibit a causative effect that starts with high GDP as the cause. War, for example, is the easiest and most direct way to drive a high GDP.

Comment mens rea (Score 2) 165

Effectively the court has rules that "authorization" for the purpose of computer hacking is mens rea, not actus reus. If you obviously knew you lacked authority (mens rea = mental state) then the element is satisfied regardless of any technicalities about the access control systems (actus reus = actual activity). Crimes require both mens rea (knew you lacked authority) and actus reus (used the computer anyway).

That's why it's OK for the wife to log in and pay the husband's credit card bill: she has a _reasonable_ belief that it's OK to do so, thus the mens rea element of the crime is not proven.

Comment Re:Authorization from who? (Score 1) 165

Not necessarily the data owner. Authorization from one of the owners of the computers/data/account/something or that entity's duly designated representative. Authorization from -somebody- who might reasonably have the right to grant authorization.

The folks involved in this scheme clearly understood that they lacked valid authorization to access those computers in the manner they did. It wasn't even subtle or gray-area.

Comment Re:20 lines of... (Score 1) 496

Fair question. The answer is this: genius can't be trained. It is improved with training but it has to be there already. The work in question required a particular kind of genius with enough of the right kind of experience to feed the insights and frame the work correctly so that others who also had the skill but didn't have the insight could flesh it out and build it.

Perhaps 10,000 people in the world could have done it. The cross-section of that with folks who had clearances, wanted to work in Virginia and looked for a job that year turned out to be zero.

Comment Re:And she gets away with it... (Score 1) 1010

Also, and I may just be picking a nit here, he was accused of downloading marked classified information from a classified network to an unclassified network and then taking it home. Clinton was accused of transmitting unmarked classified information entirely on unclassified networks.

Similar in the way that red and blue are similar: they're both colors.

Comment Re:20 lines of... (Score 1) 496

Actually, I figure it was the kind of jobs for which there's a higher demand than supply, the type not just anybody can learn.

I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants at any price. Hundreds of applicants. Three folks who might have had the necessary TCP/IP skill but no clearance. Plenty with clearances but not the skill. One guy I hired for a different position which didn't require the depth of TCP/IP skill. But none for the job I needed to fill.

So yeah, if you ever sit on this side of the table you'll discover there are a lot of folks who aren't qualified to do the work they seek. Not just aren't worth the money they want, actually aren't capable of doing the jobs they want to do at any price. Don't have the minds for it. Don't have the skills. Don't have the experience to be able to make good judgement calls.

Comment Re:They're half right (Score 1) 117

Well, both approaches have one commonality: they're completely unreasonable.

A reasonable approach would work like Miss Utility: give the cable's owner has a brief period of time to act. So long as they act promptly the new installer may not touch. Miss the deadline and any damage to their infrastructure is on them instead of on the new installer.

Comment They're half right (Score 3, Insightful) 117

Frontier and AT&T are half right: no one should be allowed to tamper with the existing attachments without notifying the company who owns those wires and giving them reasonable opportunity to act. That way lies chaos and disruption.

They're dead wrong about the "negotiate access" thing though. Those utility poles are in public right of ways. The public has a right to use them under common carriage rules whether their "owners" like it or not. If the utilities don't like it, the localities can and should take them over for public use same as the roads.

Slashdot Top Deals

VMS must die!