4327 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: Somebody told me
Hey, when you detox maybe we can have a real conversation. In the meantime, here's some knowledge for you:
THC is harmful to humans in high enough quantities. Doing a resin extract on high-grade marijuana (such as BC Hydro) from a relatively small number of bugs is more than enough to move from "pleasant recreational high" into "potential for harm."
The amount of THC to in a marijuana leaf when compared to the fibrous content moves the leaves out of any semblance of "useful for a high" and into "getting on as bad as tobacco". Smoking marijuana leaves will kill you, the same as smoking cigarettes will. To get a buzz off of marijuana leaves (with the one or two specially bred strains set to one side) you are going to have to smoke a god-awful amount of the stuff. Far - far - more than is healthy. What's more, you'll probably notice negative chemical interactions with non-THC things in those leaves way before the THC gets you baked.
So yeah, all things in moderation...and learn some science before you go sticking chemicals in your body, eh? Another thing worth considering: if you are so wrapped up in marijuana that someone pointing out that it does have downsides and must be taken in moderation is enough to feel to you as though you are personally attacked then you have a fucking problem. Emotionally bonding with a chemical substance enough to have incorporated it's use into your sense of personal identity is a strong component of psychological addiction and you probably want to have that looked at.
Take it from a hardcore caffiene addict: you're a hell of a lot better off if you can actually just walk away from the stuff. Not say you can, or think you can, but actually can. Control the use, man, don't let the use control you. Now get the heck out of my face I need more coffee.
Re: Somebody told me
You smoke the bud of the flower. Specifically you are looking for the "crystals". These "crystals" are in fact trichromes; in the case of marijuana a type of resin-bearing glandular hair that is where the bulk of the THC concentration lies.
Modern marijuana plants have been selectively bred to produce larger trichromes with a higher resin load; thus moving from largely microscopic elements of the plant bud to naked-eye-visible macro structures. If you have a particularly potent strain of marijuana you will notice what appear to be "shimmering crystals" on the bud (as opposed to merely a collection of white hairs.)
This is the difference between world-renowed strains (such as "BC Hydro" here in Canada) and the stuff your daddy smoked back in the day. It should be noted that the stuff your daddy smoked was an order of magnitude (or more) less potent than what can be had cheaply and easily today.
For the real nutjobs looking to engage in chemical lobotomy you can strip the trichromes from the bud using various mechanisms and then either extract the resin or ingest/inhale/etc the trichrome-rich "crystal powder". This will get rid of a lot of the carcinogens present in other parts of the plant (particularly if you smoke your marijuana) however is roughly as stupid as drinking 190 proof Everclear straight from the bottle.
The leaves of the marijuana plant are generally only used by enthusiasts who need "filler" to mix in with the buds that they smoke. There is no value (and a lot of downsides) to smoking what is essentially hemp fibres. (Just pick up a rug and smoke it. That's basically what smoking a marijuana leaf would net you.)
There you go, your herb lore has been levelled up. These same basic principals apply to many species beyond marijuana and are of particular interest for those working with Artemisia.
More information on tricromes:
Your science has also been levelled up. You're welcome.
Mind the oracle licensing; you don't simply pay licences for the number of cores assigned to the VM, but rights you Must pay licences for the total number of cores available in the host! Honestly, you are probably better off running Oracle on metal strictly for licensing reasons.
Re: no smb 2012 !!!
Damn straight. Microsoft kicked SMBs in the nuts, let them fall the the ground, then demanded those same SMBs subscribe to be kicked in the nuts over and over again each year.
Small Business Server 2011 was bloody brilliant and I won't soon forgive them for murdering it. The bastards.
Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...
Oh FFS. Looky: VMware: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/12/vmware_enterprise_review/
They give me word limits, eh? Sometimes you only do a topic at a time, not "HERE IS EVERY PRODUCT UNDER THE SUN COMPARE THEM ALL ASDFOMFGWTFBBQ"
I'm now a wikipedia, I'M A HUMAN BEING! :flailing:
Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ... @gerdesj
I slag on interfaces for usability ("where the hell is X?") and change management ("GOOGLE, STOP MOVING MY FUCKING BUTTONS!") I never once claimed to have a sense of aesthetics. If you've a better Wordpress theme - or better colour ideas I could bang into the existing one - I'm entirely open to it.
Re: Other Vendors
Zentyal has a $deity long way to go before it's actually usable. Not the least of which is birthing a remote access protocol that isn't made out of slow and horrible. It has an almost usable web UI - but still nowhere near as comprehensive or well supported as Virtualmin/Webmin/Usermin - and about the only nice thing I can say for the desktop UI is "at least it isn't Unity."
Zentyal needs more UX TLC and to start putting R&D into places in the Linux ecosystem (like the aforementioned remote access protocols and UX) that other distros won't. Until then it's Just Another Distro that doesn't net much over *min. For the cost, I expect more...or at the very least a commitment to a roadmap that will get those who bet their businesses on Zentyal where we need to go.
Wake me when Zentyal has taken over development of the FreeRDP server (now merged into Weyland, but still needing lots of dev support to move forward). When they've made a commitment like that - with some real, tangible benefits to the SME user that will ultimately place Zentyal ahead of the myriad other competing Linux distros in the area - I will start to believe.
That said, they're not a bad distro if you can't afford a Synology.
Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.
I don't know man, my SMB stable is pretty hard core Small Business Server 2011. You'll pry that out of their cold, dead hands. When you do, I'm almost certain it will be replaces with a Synology, not "Microsoft Azure NSA Edition with +1 to yearly subscription $$$." I wholly expect them to keep clinging to that OS until it goes out of support.
Re: You like hard questions? ;)
I try to ignore those because they make me sad. It took until Server 2012 before IIS even got a workable bloody FTP server. How many of those websites are running on old? Sads. I have many.
Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome.
With the sole exception of domain controllers - seriously guys, virtualisation aware DCs in Server 2012 are the shit - I can't make the case for moving from Server 2008 R2 to Server 2012. The case for Server 2003 --> Server 2012 is easy. But Server 2008 R2 is a beloved old friend that is more than good enough to get the job done.
It used to be that I was perfectly comfortable with Server 2003 R2. DFSR was really all I needed to make most of what I do work fine. Then I got a Server 2008 R2 licence and set it up as a DC with DNS and DHCP. Now I can't go back. I just can't do it; Server 2003 is just too old.
You know what won me over? The ability to right click on a system in DHCP and add a reservation. That's it; right there. I wasn't won over by a firewall or a protocol, I wasn't won over by encryption or the power of Greyskull. I was won over because someone put an improvement into the operating system that does what computers are supposed to do in the first place: make boring repetitive tasks easier.
I find it interesting to note, however, that I am not nearly so rah-rah about Server 2012? Why? Because Microsoft threw ease of use out the Window. They became obsessed with the technology itself and fuck the people who have to actually use it.
If I wanted to live in a world like that, I'd use Linux. Oh wait, I do! Though it would send our resident hypertroll into paroxysms of rage, I pick Linux not because of nerdly masturbation or ethical handwaving. I choose it because in very specific circumstances it is actually *way* easier to use than Server 2012.
If you go the Server 2012 route you're stuck with the same damned things as you are on the "commercial Linux" route: mind-bogglingly shitty UIs or the shell. The shell is the aformentionned "rote memorization route" and we've wound the argument back 'round to "this isn't going to work for SMEs."
The real question is "what's going to come after Server 2008 R2 for the small business world?" It sure as shit isn't the cloud; well, not for anyone that cares about their data or not getting sued into a lump of coal. (Hi, Echelon!) The truth is that I don't really know the answer. I think there's a gap in the market here that simply isn't being filled.
That basically leaves me with hoping Synology decides to build a rockstar ecosystem around the DSM. They seem to be the only play that gives anything close to a damn any more...and it's not really all that close to a damn at all.
I personally think that the era of installed operating systems is simply over for the SME. Virtual and physical appliances are the future. The overwhelming majority of these will be Linux based, with the off BSD and Windows units making appearances for colour.
Microsoft and Oracle (via Solaris/ZFS) are sitting on the technologies required to make great SME gear. They won't do so because they fear cannibalising their cloud and enterprise licenceing markets.
Too many Linux types are Eadon-class zealots. They can't see beyond their own neuroses long enough to solve the UI problems. My recent interactions with Microsoft make it clear that under no circumstances do the give any fucks whatsoever about addressing usability issues either.
The closed source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, they aren't worth the money." Open source giants say "fuck users and SMEs, it's their own damned fault if they are too stupid to see the perfection of our glorious design." The next-generation SaaS vendors are all about the users and SMEs, slaving over designs until they are intuitive, but demand vendor lock-in, or your privacy in exchange for that usability. Worse, they're mostly based in the US, so the other 6.3 Billion of us can't use them!
It's starting to feel lonely here down at the bottom. No love for the SMEs or end users from any of the players out there. You know you've hit rock bottom when your hopes for the endpoint boil down to "maybe Tizen won't suck too bad" and your hopes for user-grokkable servers are a black box like Synology.
Beer, because this is damned depressing already.
Re: Required support tools?
I don't understand won't you require such tools with Server 2012.
Nope, you won't need to buy all (or most) of those tools if you run an OS under support. Server 2012 is quite capable of taking care of itself, thank you. This isn't the Windows XP era; you don't need to piss yourself in terror at the thought of running a Windows system with an external IP address. You can pretty much do an "upgrade in place" to your existing badly-designed network without having to rearchitect the whole damned thin and carrying on with a shite security model for the next 10 years or so.
Should you be tearing up your network and redesigning everything so that there is massive amounts of segregation, multiple firewalls from independent vendors, IDS systems to detect everything, etc? Yes. Will 99%+ of companies unless you have a gun to their heads? No.
Remember that most companies are SMEs. "Eggshell security" (a hardened edge offering a single point of defence protecting a relatively wide-open and "squishy" internal network) is the best they can afford. Not merely for CapEx but for OpEx reasons.
As soon as Server 2003 moves out of support there is no rational way to keep on doing eggshell computing. The first trojan that happens along with annihilate your entire network. Server 2012 is secure enough and keep up to date with patches, etc, that you can keep on this path with about the same level of risk (probably lower) than you had before Server 2003 went out of support.
It isn't the proper way to do things, but it is the common way people do things. Server 2012 basically buys you another decade or so during which you don't have to redeisgn the entire network and retrain all your staff.
If you had access to the source code then you could recompile the old app to run on Server 2012.
Maybe. Maybe not. I'd still need someone who could deal with library changes between the two and so forth. Either way, most people don't have access to the source code. Welcome to capitalism. It sucks. Mind who you vote for next time and maybe we can slowly start to change this, eh?
Re: You like hard questions? ;)
"Why make the move to Server 2012 with its dinkey-toy interface, while you can still get Server 2008R2?"
This is a damned good question, sir, and one I still don't have a satisfying answer to. Server 2012 R2 is worth the jump, despite the absolute shite interface. Server 2012 versus Server 2008 R2...
...well, the only big reasons I have for that are storage related. SMB 3 is way better than SMB 2, but this sort of presumes you are using Windows 8. Also: the iSCSI target in Server 2012 is way better than the shitemobile in 2008 R2. Oh, and DirectAccess; if you do IPv6 things then you don't want to faff about with Server 2008 R2. Oh, and the whole virtualisation-aware AD controllers. Those are damned cool.
I'd say "IIS finally stopped sucking monkey dong in Server 2012" but honestly here, who uses IIS?
So it's really a toss up. If you use iSCSI off of Windows Server then 2012 is a no-brainer. I have an article coming up on why you really should be upgrading your AD controllers to 2012. DirectAccess is a bit of a niche still, but if you use it, go 2012.
Otherwise? 2008 R2. Until you pry it from my cold, dead hands. Just like Windows 7.
Re: Eadon might come across as a bit of a twat ...
Aye. I'm pretty sure in my article I made mention of the fact that selling the upgrades wasn't entire about the tech. As to the "making cloud computing a reality" bit, I stand by that statement 100%. In fact, I'm working on several articles that explain that in depth.
This article was aimed at providing non-techie reasons to upgrade so you can bypass management blocks. I am assuming the techies have passed judgment by now. How to get it past the boss (presuming you want the thing) is really the question.
You all also have to understand that I've seen Server 2012 R2 and Microsoft's new "Hosted Azure." (Basically a management interface that is simply a "role" in Server 2012 R2.) Hosted Azure honestly and truly does give complete blinking idiots the power to roll their own cloud; one at least as good as what Microsoft is itself running. (I am going to actually argue better than Microsoft is running, because Microsoft has one gigantic AD multi-forest. Replication throughout that forest is slowing everything in Azure (and especially Office 365!) to a grinding halt and causing all sorts of hell.)
The underlying technology between Server 2012 and Server 2012 R2 hasn't changed all that much. There are some nice improvements, but it is nothing like the generational leap that existed between Server 2008 R2 and Server 2012.
The technology underpinning Server 2012 really, truly makes cloud computing possible for the average sysadmin. You can roll your own private IaaS infrastructure, move that up to PaaS and even deploy entire SaaS application sets with comparative ease. Not on someone else's cloud, but on your own cloud. From a purely technological standpoint, I am deeply impressed by Server 2012.
That isn't to say I think it's all roses. The interface is shit. The licensing is mostly shit and they still haven't made things like VDI affordable. Hell, they come out with a great technology like DirectAccess and then restrict it to enterprise only versions while refusing to backport the client to WIndows 7!
Microsoft makes great technology. This isn't the same company that turned out Windows NT. Those who can't get over 10 or 15 year old prejudices need to grow the fuck up. There's a lot to bitch at Microsoft about, but increasingly the raw technology they put out is not it.
Indeed, this thread has caused me to mash out an opinion column on my issues with MS. For those that are capable of understanding that you can both appreciate the technology available and loathe the manner in which it provisioned you can read my further thoughts on the topic here.
Re: Oh Thank god or other convenient deity
EM Pulse. You can reboot the bugger, but something tells me his particular illness will require that he be back. At least spoting the replacement accounts will be no harder with him than it was with RICHTO!
Re: @bigtimehustler: I have to say that I agree with every word you have posted.
If they want us to accept their "leadership" then they have to accept we have a say whether they like it or not.
No privacy invasion or economic exploitation without representation!
Surprisingly sane. I'm not against the government possessing a 2-year metadata TiVo so long as the restrictions on access are pretty damned tight, courts aren't secret and oversight is provided by civil liberties organizations, not government shills.
To be guilty of espionage, don't you have to have provided information to "the enemy"? If so, is the espionage charge against Snowden the #NSA formally admitting that "the people" are the enemy? If both of those are true, why aren't "the people" rampaging through the streets and setting shit on fire on the White House lawn?
Re: "Don't build in tornado alley"
Um, I happen to live nowhere near a fault line. Tornadoes are rare. Nowhere near a coast. Nowhere near a volcano. Blizzards occur with regularity, but shockingly we're really, really good at dealing with those.
There are plenty of places to build cities. Hell, if you aren't being a complete dipshit you have the ability to view the world as something other than black and white. That means "near a volcano or inactive fault line" is a calculated risk whose odds are damned slim.
"Rebuilding New Orleans" is not a calculated risk, it's fucking lunacy. If you can't grok the difference between "a billion dollar disaster is likely to recur in the exact same spot within and human lifetime" and "our best science says the volcano we're parking our city by isn't due to erupt for another 800,000 years" then I'd say the odds you're an omega-level moron approach unity.
I'd say you don't build anywhere that there is a better than 50% chance of > 25% of your city being wiped out within 5 generations. Farm that land instead. The loss of a few farms is a hell of a lot easier to cope with than rebuilding New Orleans for the idioth time.
Here are some ideas, just for fun:
1) After your coastal city gets obliterated for the umpteenth time, don't rebuild on the same spot.
2) Stop trying to "green" the desert by pumping out the last of the fossil water in the major aquifers and start moving population to locations that are far more sustainable.
3) Plant forests and other eco-buffers. They can mitigate both heatwaves and floods.
4) Plan for emergencies by building large reservoirs. These can provide water during heatwaves and absorb overflow during floods.
5) Start upgrading agricultural infrastructure to minimize water usage and maximize reclamation. Treat the runoff and pump it back underground into the aquifer.
6) For the love of $deity stop building new cities in tornado alley.
For the cost of constantly rebuilding some rich town's beach after ever blustery squall the US could be investing in real upgrades to agriculture, forestry and population migration that would not only save lives but drive down the medium and long term costs of coping with climate change.
We get it, Americans don't want to be bothered with climate change for any number of reasons. There's not much anyone can do about that. But isn't it about time they started to plan for the consequences of that choice and start making sound financial decisions about the large-scale infrastructure and population centres of their country?
They are like children in a tinderbox. Not with matches, mind you, but with a plasma torch they can't stop fingering but adamantly deny exists.
Re: Does not compute
Nyet. It's required on all client devices, but it talky just fine to the Linuxen on the server side.
Re: DirectAccess - does what it says on the tin, but...
Microsoft and licensing. What are you going to do except weep?
Re: DirectAccess - does what it says on the tin, but...
I'm pretty sure the article made clear the fact that Server 2008 R2's implementation of DirectAccess was less appealing that rotting goat cheese.
Your point about public certs is well taken, however; my experience with it bears out your warning there.
Since when has Microsoft licensing been sane, humane or designed to do anything other than infuriate and antagonize?
Re: Does not compute
I think you might have missed the point of the article. DirectAccess protects the lightbulb in the same way your home router today defends your network: it is the single attack surface of the network.
Nobody has produced a remotely comparable consumer-level IPv6 firewall. Microsoft have the closest thing to something usable by small businesses. DirectAcces is that "gateway" device on your network; and at the moment it's the best there is.
In the internet of things you cannot guarantee that every individual device will be defensible. You need solid gateway tech. DirectAccess is far from perfect, but I see nothing else on the market that is usable for the non-linux, non-cisco nerd. DirectAccess running on a home NAS (like perhaps a newer generation version of that WD Sentinel) would be a wonderful edge device for a home network.
Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
Seriously haven't even had a chance to touch it yet. Your e-mail is on my "todo" list.
About three weeks ago every single one of my non-Edmonton clients started losing their shit as The Great Pre-VMworld Planning has begun. I get >100 actionable e-mails a day and end up in an average of 4hrs of phone calls. The rest of the day is scrambling to put out fires on client sites, move research and implementation projects for "must be done August 1" datacenter upgrades for clients, cranking out documents for the tech sites I write for, critiquing marketing slides/sites/videos/blogs/etc from my clients or writing said slides/sites/videos/blogs/etc.
I've never in my life been as busy as I am now. Unlike when shit hitteth fan as a generalist sysadmin who had to do everything from tech support to CIO-level planning I am not on the verge of a nervous breakdown. This tech marketing consulting thing is an absolute blast and a half! I love writing, too; so I'm doubly blessed that this is how my crazy time works out.
Sadly, the one thing that gets chopped during crunch time is personal research projects like Core Config. I don't have a comissioned article covering it and my blogs are basically planned until September. Worse; the lab itself is booked solid for at least the next two weeks! Even if I wanted to, I couldn't get time on my own test lab at this point; I have a three-man company and we're going to have to implement chargeback software so we can track lab use for given project and clients.
All of that isn't to say that I'll not be getting 'round to core config. I absolutely will. It will, however, have to wait for a quieter time. Or until I get around to buying another 4 nodes to flesh out that FatTwin of mine. Who'd have ever thought I'd flatten four of those nodes 24/7 for two solid months?
Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
I AM TEVOR! I CONSUME THE LETTER R! :destruction of Tokyo:
Beer because FRIDAY!
Re: Does not compute
Why do you think I like DirectAccess? It gives me that single point of defence instead of my having to be constantly paranoid that I need to update the firmware on my lightbulb to prevent some clown from using it as an attack vector behind my perimeter.
Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
"People often say that sort of thing about an article that says something positive about anything from any commercial entity. Are you scared that actually calling the writer a shill will get you zapped? I note you seem to have shied away from that word of late. Perhaps since a warning to that effect was posted in one of the threads?"
No, he's afraid he's look like fucking clownshoes for calling me - of all people in the universe - a shill for Microsoft. I have something of a reputation for publicly calling Microsoft out when it needs to be done. I am one of Microsoft's harshest critics whilst not being completely batshit bananas. A perusal of my posting history on The Register or on Trevorpott.com will bear that out in short order.
It is the reason I get assigned Microsoft articles. I am not afraid to tell Microsoft to eat a steaming pile of crap if they step out of line. When Microsoft does something good I say "hey guys, this is good, we should probably care!" When Microsoft does something bad I excoriate them and then spit on their remains.
I don't think you'll find many Microsoft articles of mine in which I universally praised a product or service. In fact, I think if you take a poke at this very one I pointed out where I had some squiggles about DirectAccess applicability and even mildly rebuked Microsoft for not having ported the Windows 8 client to Windows 7. (Which I find ridiculous for purely pragmatic reasons; it would have driven adoption of the technology which in turn would ultimately have led to dependence and One More Reason for customers not to switch.)
So Eadon - and any other hard-core anti-Microsoft type - can't come out and call me a Microsoft shill directly without appearing clinically insane. I am - and always have been - very open about any dealings I have had with vendors that could possibly influence my judgment or impartiality. The About Trevor page on Trevorpott.com contains a detailed disclosure list including a link to the WeBreakTech About Us page which itself contains a detailed explanation of how the sausage of technology blogging gets made.
Shills do not typically devote a third of a review to talking about an elephant in the room that they have been explicitly told the subject of the review would rather not be talked about.
If I was a shill for Microsoft I wouldn't write an article about how I'll never trust them or called their "all in bet" on the cloud by discussing the real cost of cloud storage, the general lack of trustworthy design in computing (and how that has dramatic repercussions for a cloudy world, or called for a planetary boycott of US cloud providers.
I'm tired of this "shill" business; especially as pertains to Microsoft. I think I've proven more than enough times that am 100% pure El Reg material: I bite the hand that feeds IT and I do so gleefully.
The truth is that I don't have any real-world economic or pragmatic reason to be a shill. If I piss off one company and they will never deal with me again then there are literally thousands to take that company's place. I am far more valuable to Microsoft - or anyone else - exactly as I am. Nobody trusts a butt snorkler. When Microsoft has something actually worth writing home about they'll drop it in my lap and there is credibility to me saying "this doesn't suck!"
So once and for all, to Eadon - or anyone else - who thinks I am a shill: , internet trolls.
DirectAccess was a topic that I chose to write about. I chose it because the version that came with Server 2008 R2 was a steam pile of elephant dung and I wanted a reason to carve out time on the eGeek lab to test the new version and see if it had improved. It has.
Just wait until I get to start writing about Server 2012 R2. Some of the stuff they've built into that looks awesome. If even half of those features live up to the hype...
Re: World's cleverest company states the obvious
Learning what does and doesn't work for others helps me refine my approaches. After all, don't we all learn by either making mistakes ourselves or trying to modify our behaviour based on the mistakes others make? More data is always useful, especially in areas where I have little expertise.
Re: World's cleverest company states the obvious
I, for one, have only every actually done 3 interviews sitting on the employer side of the desk. I find the information about what worked (and didn't) for Google helpful. Doubly so now that I have my own company and it's future growth to worry about.
Re: No rehash
What he said. I use Microtiks and what cumulus is up to is on a completely different scale. For that matter, I've built "roll your own" Linux based routers and switches since the before time. There's lots on the market that does this. Cumulus is the Open Compute of the networking world: it's designed for scale.
As for "real life comparisons" well, if any cumulus stuff (or higher end Microtik stuff, or both) ever wanders into my lab, I'll write a review. In the meantime, I'll keep building routers of of Supermicro boxen running CentOS with a realtime kernel. :)
Oracle doesn't have customers
it has hostages.
They came out of stealth without telling me. I'm crushed!
Seriously though, I was one of the people who beta tested this for GA release and ThousandEyes is blinking amazing. Some of the best software in it's class I've had the pleasure to work with. If you've the cash to play the game, you'll not be disappointed.
FINALLY. Thank $deity. This alone is worth upgrade two whole labs of Macs I have out there.
Re: Who is at fault?
I use a 10 dollar/year DNS registrar. They e-mail me at 1 year, 90 days, 30 days, 5 days, 1 day and then they hold the domain for an additional 6 months before release.
Seriously? How does LINKEDIN lose their domain?
I can't say I've always made my renewal date, but my worst was 5 hours. I at least have the excuse that domain maintenance - or really, any given task - is not my primary job. I do 80K things a day and some things slip through the cracks. LinkedIn is large enough to have a full time body just to handle DNS naming, renewal and certs.
Are you going to tell me that their enormous campus (filled with Googlebikes, because they are close enough for there to be stupid amounts of cross-polination and friends visiting friends) is still so terribly small that they can't find ONE GUY whose job it is to monitor this sort of stuff full time? I'd say pull a cook from that cafe of theirs, but actually it's a damned good cafe and that would be a crime...
Everyone reset your passwords for LinkedIn. AGAIN. SON OF A...
More or less. The first thing that comes to mind is that the fellow saw this not as an opportunity to outright steal the money but rather as a means of gaining a temporary influx of large amounts of capital he wouldn't otherwise have access to. He probably figured he would then invest it in something with a high short term return and pay back the original monies owed; he would pocket the difference and essentially get a "free" loan from IBM/Microsoft/etc.
I'd have to think that outright theft (in which the "clients" simply never paid their bills) would get noticed and banged up immediately. The scheme I propose, however, is just as illegal but could conceivably go undetected for long enough for the guy to get away with oodles of cash. (The cash being either the interest he pocketed from the investments or the final amount he simply couldn't pay back because he sucks at investing.)
I'd be very interested in finding out the details. Sounds like a fun mystery. "How gaming the system doesn't work if you are an idiot and suck at gambling."
Re: @Evil Auditor
"And if someone did stab you, and you were sure you knew who was responsible but between you and the police you didn't have quite enough evidence for them to be charged, you'd retrospectively consider the police arresting them as a mistake?"
Part of living under the rule of law - and living free - is that you risk every day of your life being blown up by a madman, run over by a car, stabbed by someone and many other horrible things. In most cases the perpetrator will be caught. In some cases they won't. This is a risk we take in the name of fundamental liberties and it is a price entirely worth paying..
This is not a "grey area" issue. There are no "gradations of justice." Every single sentient, sapient life form is possessed of the same fundamental liberties and deserving of the exact same rights and freedoms.. You do not get to curb the freedoms of someone else because you don't like them, their politics, their past, their race, height, weight, gender or because you/the state/your mom/etc suspect them of a crime.
The man who is suspected of stabbing me has the exact same rights I do and no just society can arrest him without a damned good reason, search him without probable cause and if we are to jail him then the evidence against him must meet certain standards.
Fortunately, your entire argument is a worthless straw man. If I walked up a police office and said "that man just stabbed me" then that is probably cause to detain him pending arrest. He could then be arrested if little things like "yes, there is a stab wound on you" can be verified. Eye witness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of testimony but our laws still allow for it to be used.
It is better that 100 evil men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned. Innocent unless proven guilty is an absolute. There is no wiggle room. There are no circumstances under which it is ethically or morally justifiable for that concept not to apply.
Re: @Trevor Pott
I confuse no such thing. The police are an extension of the state and that database can be and is used against you before you ever get to a court of law. You are arguing for effective extrajudicial findings of guilt (by default, simply by being suspected by a member of the plod) and sentencing (being added to a database that will have you treated differently from someone not in the database). You are advocating allowing members of the state to pass judgement on its citizens without the right to trial or a jury of their peers no matter how you dress it up.
Under no circumstances should police be keeping records on anyone who is not
A) Proven guilty with all matters of due process carefully observed
B) Actively under investigation
C) Have a formal complaint lodged against them where that complaint is signed by the complainant
Suspicions, gossip, mistaken arrests and so forth should never be retained. If a police office has a formal complaint to make against an individual then he should have the right to do that and he must sign his name to it. In addition, formal complaints must have an notification and appeals process allowing the individual subject to them to challenge the issue and have the complain removed from their record if they succeed.
The burden of innocence is on the state, not the individual. If you want to call me "pompous" for seeking to defend our essential liberty you go right ahead. Your pathetic attempt to deflect scrutiny of the utter lunacy of your claims with an a weak ad homenim is not going to hurt my feelings more than the idea that a silver badge holding reader of The Register would not merely exhibit apathy in the face of such actions by an overreaching state but actively defend them.
You offend me, sir. The names you choose to call me are irrelevant in the face of the callousness of your beliefs.
Re: @Trevor Pott
You certainly implied guilty unless proven innocent the instant you implied that the rare consequence of a criminal "getting away with it" was somehow an acceptable reason for retaining gossip on record with the strength of fact. The whole concept requires throwing out the presumption of innocence.
Your argument is basically "if someone was arrested there was a damned good reason for it" which is the SAME FUCKING THING as "guilty unless proven innocent." It implies that the state cannot be wrong (how Cardassian of you!) or at least that it is wrong so rarely that the odd innocent caught in the net is worth the cost to society.
You are wrong.
It is better than 100 evil men go free then that one innocent man be jailed.
The fact that you have been arrested makes you guilty of no crime. Suspicion of having committed a crime is not proof of your guilt. The state can be and often is wrong. There is no moral or ethical means by which you can justify retention of records for someone who has been not been convicted of a crime in a court of law.
You are advocating that suspicion of anything by the state means guilt by default and simultaneously that harming innocents to get the guilty is okay. I will fight against you and people who believe as you toh every ounce of my spirit, every means at my disposal every last ounce of passion and life that I possess. Fuck you sir, you are the fucking enemy.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Translation for younger folks: "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Apathy is as damning as actively seeking to destroy the liberty of others. I will treat it as such.
Guilty unless proven innocent, sirrah?
You are the enemy.
Honest question: how does this database's so-called "due process" square with the EU "right to be forgotten"? I'll leave the question of "should such a database exist" for other threads, but I do wonder how "unproven or non-essential-to-task personally identifiable information" can be stored indefinitely against someone's will?
Would there be legal grounds under the current system of interlocking (and often overlapping) jurisdictions to appeal this to the EU human rights courts? It seems to me that the state can make a reasonable case for keeping objectively verifiable information on hand using "national security" as waving flag. Do the "get out of jail free" rules allowing such governmental drag nets really give the UK permission to create a national gossip database and then use it against citizens with no realistic grounds for appeal?
If so then I would put forth that A) that's some shitty lawmaking and B) civilized countries would probably consider you being registered in a gossip database as grounds for political asylum. Gods know I would.
I know it's a terribly nerdy, Star Trek thing to say, but...the whole system sounds more than just Orwellian, it's downright Cardassian.
I am defeated by a Zork reference. You win the Internets.
Re: Dear Mods,
I think "ad homenim attacks against Trevor" get through because I am perfectly capable and willing to troll asshats right back. Forehead slant? IQ of a decomposed tomato? No problem! I'll gleefully excoriate you in public for my own amusement while you keep digging deeper. Internets!
Nope, I always appear to be sanctimonious arse to idiot blowhards who are consistently wrong. It must be a terrible burden to see perfection every time you look in the mirror, most humans don't handle cognitive dissonance early so well as you can. I'm truly impressed by the way you manage to compartmentalize your thought processes. Your genome should be sequenced for science.
Puppet, patch thyself.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind.
It is nearly time for the Butlerian jihad.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015