* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6624 posts • joined 31 May 2010

The gear I use in my test lab: A look at three Trident+ switches

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Quotes

How so? I have nothing agaist Supermicro per se. I only object your adulation of Supermicro.

Which is entirely my point. I don't elevate Supermicro above where they belong. I point out their flaws as well as their benefits. But I don't, like some, pretend they don't exist. They have become an important vendor in the past few years and I won't pretend that isn't the case. That this bothers you indicates to me a bias against them on your behalf.

It was an honest question. How would you formulate it then? It should be stated if you are given stuff permanently or on a loan basis when you are reviewing them on this site. If you are handling your own or your clients devices then fine - I'd have absolutely nothing against that.

Quite simply, I would be asking about access to review sources rather than who gets to keep what.

The big reason for this is that if I am being perfectly honest free stuff doesn't matter. After you've been doing reviews for even a little while you have so much technowhosits that free stuff isn't a benefit that makes you like the vendor it becomes a burden.

Where do I put all the junk I get sent, hmm? How do I power it? I probably have a half-million dollars worth of gear in my house and I can't have more than 10% of it on at any given time or the house overheats. How many VMs do I really need to run? How much testing can I really do? But there is an unlimited supply of this stuff, and demand from vendors as well as readers to write reviews.

Understand me when I say that writing reviews is not profitable. Not in the least. It takes days to properly test most equipment. Weeks or months for enterprise grade stuff. If the equipment is shipped to me I usually end up paying hundreds of dollars in customs or shipping fees and there are tax implications if the equipment is kept for more than a year.

Shipping it back to a vendor costs money - hundreds of dollars, usually - so no matter which way I play this I probably end up paying at least $1000 for a switch or server and $2500 for a largeish storage unit and get paid a fraction of that for the article I write. All for equipment that is typically too power hungry and/or loud to actually use.

And yet, you phrase your question as though I am somehow going to be biased because a vendor sends me equipment to keep. What?!?

You betray your ignorance of how the review scene works, sir.

I would also hope that reviewers are willing to work with samples provided by vendors in addition to merely reviewing those items that they/their customers deploy in the field.

This is called expanding one's horizons. It's important. It's part of begin a good technician and a good reviewer. By all means, try to put production workloads on whatever you test, but don't restrict yourself to the narrow field of view that has been your traditional comfort zone. That's not only how biases start, that's where brand tribalism comes from. And brand tribalism is very, very bad.

That said, a reviewer can only review the equipment he or she has access to. Even then, many reviewers have to turn down a lot of reviews because reviews are normally a net negative and thus we can only afford to subsidize so many of these things per year. If you don't like that fact, start funding reviewers.

If the D-Link switches would just keep on trucking like all those 3Coms and HPs all the way from the 1990s I'd really wouldn't have such a big beef with them.

I did a count the other day. Across my supported base there are a total of 1850 d-link switches. Of those, around 350 are over ten years old. Over 1000 are at least six years old. I've taken some time to talk to other MSPs for the SMB scene and am seeing similar survival rates. So I would have to say that your personal experiences do not match the broader statistics.

You also bring up a bunch of stuff about D-Link that is completely irrelevant to the hardware. Are they perfectly valid reasons to not use D-Link? Yes, but that isn't related to the survivability of the hardware at all.

Nowhere did I say I like D-Link. Nowhere did I recommend D-Link. Truth be told, I wouldn't put new D-Link switches into any of my installs today, mostly for non-hardware related reasons, some of which you highlighted.

You seem unable to disconnect objective discussion of a vendor or product from endorsement of that vendor or product. It seems to me that your worldview is such that unless a vendor or product is actively being slated you feel that a vendor or product is actively being endorsed.

That would be an incorrect assessment of reality on your part.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Quotes

Almost literally, yeah. It's stuff that for the most part is maintenance, check-ups, troubleshooting, etc. It honestly goes well when I am feeling a little out of it, and just want to watch some TV. Lots of progress bars, etc. I can pause the show if a little bit of focus is required, but...well...I've been doing it for so long that the "making things go" portion of the equation is second nature.

Now, a couple of times a year I have to do some really neat architecture stuff. That takes a week or two of concerted research, maybe even a couple months of testing, depending on the project.

But "I forgot my login" or "baby the file transfer of 20TB from A to B" or "do patch testing"? Yeah, that doesn't take a lot of cycles. Just a lot of time. It's great for winding down from a day of intense research.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Anyone tried the Pluribus stuff ?

It's on my list to hunt down, as it looks cool, but haven't tried it myself yet. I've heard good things from others about it, however.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Quotes

Well THAT'S an oversight. The Supermicro should be $8000ish. Let me go check the article...

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Quotes

@Sandtitz

Brand tribalism is a piss-poor reason to choose technology. That's why I

A) Test the things to make sure they do what I need to do

B) Review needs that go beyond basic functionality

C) Discuss my thoughts and biases with industry peers

"Half of your articles usually feature Supermicro as the "answer to life, the universe, and everything" as I see it".

That would be bias against Supermicro on your part. You clearly don't like them and so you see anything complimentary about them as far more important than it really is.

"Are you getting gratis equipment from Supermicro to review, or are you reviewing only your or your clients' devices?"

Lovely "when do you plan to stop beating your wife" question. Good setup. But you should really alter capitalization for real trolling victory. The answer to your troll question is both...and neither.

I get equipment from many companies, some I get to keep, most I don't. Equipment I get to keep is listed publicly on my "about" page. I believe in full disclosure. You can find all that information here: http://www.trevorpott.com/about/.

For the record, I review what I can get my hands on. I'm not rich, so I don't have the option to spend 1000x what I get paid per article to buy stuff from various manufacturers in order to test it. If a manufacturer sends me datacenter equipment I will review it. (Consumer level stuff is harder to get past the editors.)

If you have a problem with that approach, you are welcome to start up a Patreon or Kickstarter in order to fund the acquisition costs of equipment or software from vendors who don't send gear for testing. Assuming, of course, that those vendors don't have clauses in their EULAs that prevent review without their explicit permission (see: VMware).

"On another note, the Trident+ can be found in many other manufacturers' switches as well. El Reg had articles about them over 4 years ago."

Absolutely. Do you seriously expect that I will go buy one copy of every single Trident+ switch? With what funding?

And considering that these switches are, in fact, still being sold - and selling quite well, I might add - they are still relevant. Especially to SMBs that are looking at 10GbE refreshes now that the prices on these units have more than halved since launch. Maybe that isn't relevant to your particular market niche, but - and I say this will all due delicacy - you can go pound sand.

As for your hatred for D-Link...that's your own set of Mindspiders, mate. Not mine. Take your pills and learn to smile.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

They do? I am intrigued. I will need to investigate this.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Quotes

Yes, and? Everyone has biases. I am biased towards equipment I've used which has worked well for me. I am aware of this and discuss it openly and honestly.

Are you so delusional as to believe you are beyond bias?

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Open Ethernet

I am currently testing a Supermicro Cumulus Linux-based switch. Very promising so far.

3
0

Tintri shrinks its all-flash entry-level to $125K door-opener

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The capacity table is probably some combination of capacity and performance.

I can get VMs with larger storage requirements on a hybrid, but there are limits to how many VMs the hybrid can serve from a performance standpoint. Similarly I can got lots and lots of VMs onto AFAs from a performance standpoint, but only if they're smallish.

1
0

Donald Trump wants Bill Gates to 'close the Internet', Jeff Bezos to pay tax

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Beyond parody

Either he is the living embodiment of Poe's Law, or he is the sort of person against whom the phrases "some things, you die for" and "never again" were meant as crystal clear warnings.

10
0

Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Everybody gets to criticise all faiths, all dogmas and if the religious get upset about that, then they will have to suck it up. If someone disagrees with me, and they find my views unconvincing then likewise."

Criticism is not definition.

Criticizing Islam because there is bad shit in the Qu'ran is no different than my criticizing Atheism because Antitheism happens to be the loudest and most dominant flavour. In doing so you define the religion on your own terms; these things that most believers have chosen to move past you say cannot be ignored and must be reconciled to your liking.

By the same token I then define Atheism by it's antitheistic extremists and their dogma. Both of these are extremely bigoted. They are using an extreme to define a group, inaccurately.

Criticism isn't bigotry. But the inability or unwillingness to consider individual views and beliefs as separate and distinct from the views of extremists - or even from extremist elements in someone's own holy text - is bigotry. Religious faith doesn't mean literal interpretation. In fact, history has shown literalism to generally be the minority view and usually ends in violent extremism.

By all means criticize some element of some aspect of a faith. Criticize specific parts of a given holy text and/or call into question the validity of that text. But don't go around saying "Religion X is Y" unless you are prepared to be labeled a bigot. It is just as bigoted as saying "Atheism is antitheism and you don't get to disagree because it is my right to define what you believe".

I am sorry you are unable to understand that. At least I tried.

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"If you're not an atheist, Trevor, then going around to actual atheists and telling them what they really believe is sure to get up their noses."

Yes. This was indeed my point. To underscore a more critical point:

"If you're not a Muslim, commenttard, then going around to actual Muslims and telling them what they really believe is sure to get up their noses."

"If you're not an {insert X here}, commenttard, then going around to actual {insert X here}s and telling them what they really believe is sure to get up their noses."

I hope that my point has been made.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Tom Dial: I will bet you $500 that we see a national encryption escrow system pass into law in the USA in the next 5 years, with another 5 years for manufacturers to implement it. It will be designed so that keys are automatically escrowed as part of regular everyday transactions. You go to a website, it registers a copy of the session key with the escrow system, etc.

This is flawed. You know it. I know it. But I believe it is also inevitable. What is technologically a good idea will fall before political necessity. It always has.

And no, this anti-encryption hoo-haw is not going to just "blow over". Not until the spooks have the ability to spy on most encrypted communications and the laws in place to lock people up for using encrypted communications that they can't spy on.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Yes, like whistleblowing, free speech, dissent, disclosure of corrupt public officials, revealing government abuses of power, etc. Those kinds of things?"

Yes. Those are Bad Things if you happen to be in power.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

I'm pretty sure we are in agreement here --- they can regulate and criminalize but it wont stop the people it is "really supposed to stop"

Regulating encryption is about clamping down on dissidents and whistleblowers, not terrorists. And while it will not stop all of those people, it will stop most of them quite effectively.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"Evidence to prove a negative? I trust you see the fallacy of that position."

Of course I do. That's why belief that something does not and can not exist is completely idiotic. You cannot prove a negative and thus you must always remain open to the possibility of anything's existence.

The only thing I said about probability was that it was perfectly rational to believe that the probability of there being a deity was infinitesimal, but that it is absolutely not rational to believe that the possibility of there being a deity is zero.

What I have been attempting to shine a light on is the very binary thinking that the self-aggrandizing "rational thinkers" club of inaccurate "Atheists" is in fact limited and more often than not just plain wrong. Many claim science as their inspiration but are so closed minded that they cannot see they have created a belief system of absolutes every bit as mentally constraining as the faiths they simplify, bulk categorize and deride.

"When you examine believers, there is commonly an emotional hook that compels them to believe. This is why they are impervious to rational discourse. Their decision to believe is not a rational one, but emotional."

Funnily enough, this very same process describes the majority of "Atheists" I've had the misfortune of interacting with as well. Most self describe as atheists entirely as an emotional reaction to religion. They hate religion, and so they have a strong emotional need to define their belief systems as a lack of belief in a deity. It isn't about science. It is about rejecting religion. The minds of these very emotional Atheists are just as closed as the religious fuzzy wuzzies.

Of course, not all Atheists are such, just as not all religious believers are closed minded either. That is the point: the neat little containers and labels we like don't apply. People are variegated.

And the ease with which the self-described atheists in this thread rose to the bait I provided proves the very point I sought to make.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

"No need for me to buy anything either. I'd rather do without."

And? So? Then you're clearly not using encrypted internet communications to plan terrorism. The government achieves its goal either way. *shrug*

Your silent protest will make them care not at all.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"With those points taken together, I can only come to the conclusion that all people who believe in god are wrong or deluded."

Funny, I think the same thing. There's no evidence for a deity or deities and those who think that one or more exist are very bad at science. That doesn't make me an Atheist, as I also believe that anyone who looks at the evidence and concludes that there must not be a deity is equally as cracked.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science taught me that. History confirmed it. An open mind is a rare and valuable thing.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"Or, more often, to excuse what they have done to others."

Well, I've been fortunate in that I have very rarely encountered someone who needed to invoke a deity to excuse their actions. Unfortunately, I've spend a lot of time around Randians who have used their ardent belief in a lack of a deity to excuse their actions.

Blaming someone, something or nothing at all for oru own douchebaggery is one human trait that seems to transcend all belief systems.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: re. San Bernadino killings

That matters to you...but does it matter insofar as the laws passing or not? Does your acceptance of the laws (or not) prevent them from being passed or enforced?

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Criticism of ideas is not bigotry. Criticism of ideas is the meat and potatoes of science but scientists are not bigots are they?"

Criticism of ideas is not necessarily bigotry.

Criticism of ideas can be bigotry, if that criticism is not based on evidence, but instead is rooted in nothing more than a personal sense of right and wrong.

Criticism of ideas descends into bigotry when it takes the form of "because some A interpret X to mean Y then all A are M". For example "because some Islamic believers interpret their faith to mean killing infidels then all Islamics believe in a religion of death".

Consider for a moment how very easy it was for me to get a whole bunch of Atheists really, really upset in this thread. Why? Because I had the temerity to tell them what Atheism is, when they had their own interpretations of what Atheism is that did not match what I was saying.

Now let's go back to the original reason I bothered replying to you, and the whole lesson in all of this: you don't get to define to someone else what their faith is, or what their faith means. Hopefully having someone ram their views of your beliefs (or lack of belief, depending how you want to sell it to yourself) down your throat has managed to convey that fact to you.

Your description of the faith of millions of people was simplistic, bigoted and wrong. With any luck, you are now able to understand how and why.

Cheers.

0
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: If I were a terrorist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"I have morality, passed onto me from my parents (who of course were religious), but appear to have successfully instilled that morality in my children without the need to refer to any religious doctrine."

Other than the bleating of the religiously privileged, I don't think most people presume that morality must by nature descend from religion. Plenty of agnostics and atheists out there who develop fine morals without religion. Plenty of religious folks who develop fine morals too.

And plenty of really ****ed up people who develop ****ed up morality (or no discernible morality) whilst being religious, agnostic or atheist.

I think that's a really important point to bring up. The separation of morality from the belief in a god/gods/lack thereof/waiting-on-evidence-either-way/etc. The questions of faith and morality really don't have anything to do with one another. Which is something that everyone who gets emotionally invested in these sorts of debates seems to forget.

Also: worth noting...

Belief in a deity or belief that a deity cannot exist is not really related to a need for a deity. I don't really believe in a deity (at least not in any way that any modern religion would recognize.) I believe one could exist, but this has no real world influence on my life.

Given the strength that faith (either in a deity existing or in one absolutely for sure not existing) has given some, I feel that i could use some faith, one way or another. I'm just too skeptical to believe in either possibility.

Similarly, I know plenty of people who believe in a deity who don't seem to need one. They just accept the existence of a deity like they do the existence of air or gravity. It has no effect or impact on them.

There's too much baggage in the theological packaging of deism. Most of us can't unpick one element from another because we, as humans, like to categorize and make everything into these nice neat little packages. If A, then B, C, D, E and F. Not always so. Or even mostly so.

But the most predominant portrayals get the mindshare.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

Seems to me the government managed to turn off non-digital television broadcasts just fine. I think some places no longer have analogue radio, etc. This would be no different, just with more of an edge because of national security.

No need for the government to pay anything unless there is a real chance the voters will choose to get uppity over some money instead of buying into "think of the children".

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"no more than baldness is a belief that hair does not exist. There is no desperation in disinterest"

1) Baldness can be empirically proven. The lack of existence of a deity cannot.

2) Disinterest in the existence or not of a deity would generally leave open the possibility for either. That's agnosticism. Atheism requires that faith in the non-existence of a deity be employed, as there is no evidence a deity doesn't exist. Mere apathy would be open to any possibility, because there isn't any motivation or requirement to develop a belief one way or another.

There may not be desperation in disinterest regarding the existence of a deity, but there absolutely is in asserting the impossibility of same.

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: skelband: "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief."

@Schultz: and I must disagree with you. It is not rational to believe that just because something has not been measured yet that it cannot or will not be. In fact, there's all sorts of evidence in the history of scientific discovery that says exactly this attitude is destructive. (For one thing, it has lead to the "science progresses funeral by funeral" problem.)

We'll leave perception out of the debate as we would then have to bear in mind how many people perceive some deity or another. And we'd have to examine the validity (or invalidity) of human perception.

It is far more rational to approach the unknown with an open mind than a closed one. We have no proof that there is a god. We have no proof that there isn't. So the possibility exists of either being true.

Do not conflate possibility with probability. It is rational to have lots of debates about the probability of the existence of a deity. But "it doesn't exist because it has not yet been measured"? That's faith. No different from any religion.

5
6
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Encryption doesn't kill

Birth control?

BAN IT!

Abortion?

BAN IT!

Gay marriage?

BAN IT!

Guns?

Look, banning things never works. People will find ways to get them.

10
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

You can't backdoor encryption, but you can key escrow. That's a function of money and bureaucracy, not mathematics. Anyone using encryption where the key isn't in the system is a criminal and gets banged up for it. For minor offenses it's probably a fine and/or 5 years in jail, just like possessing marijuana. But if you use it in conjunction with a crime they'll use it to send you up a creek for good.

Don't confuse "can't stop everyone, all of the time" with an inability to regulate and criminalize. The technology exists to regulate encryption and prosecute those who choose to violate the new laws.

Remember: the government has no problems making all of us buy new computers/phones/etc. Give it a 5 year grace period and sure as shit, they'd feel perfectly okay banning any un-escrowed encryption and fining/jailing those who don't comply.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

@hplasm

Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence. Nor are they open minded enough to allow for the possibility. But they need to believe that there isn't one.

And fair enough. That's their shout. I have no problem with that. But it is no more rational than the need to believe that one exists.

And yes, you know what, it absolutely is a belief. Short of certain types of mathematical proofs everything in human experience is based on belief. Shit, what you see as the colour "blue" isn't what I see as the colour "blue", but we all believe we know what "blue" looks like.

Or, most of us do. Some of us understand the malleability of human perception, but then we not only are talking about a slim minority, but those people also tend to get very meta about their thinking very fast.

Humans need belied. Belief is certainty. It doesn't have to be huge. It can be as simple as "I saw Bob at the bagel shop yesterday". Our memory is fallible. It could have been Bob, it could have not been Bob. Unless there's camera footage showing you seeing Bob there's really no reason to be sure you saw Bob...but we can't live every moment of every day with that kind of uncertainty about everything. So we believe we saw Bob. Even those of us who know how flawed human memory is, because these beliefs make life easier.

Now, getting on to bigger things - a god, no god, multiple gods - this is one more time all really related to our emotional well being. Some people need to believe in a god for various reasons. Forgiveness, "it's not really my fault", some reason to self-flagellate...who knows? It's different for everyone.

Some people need to believe in an afterlife - this is separate from a belief in a god, but usually intertwined. Some people need to believe both aren't possible. Some don't know what do believe and just don't care.

But yes, belief is everywhere in the human experience. We need it just to get through our day. Even if someone is agnostic about the existence of a god/gods or not doesn't make them capable of begin agnostic about everything. Similarly, no human has even been found to ardently believe that everything they can't prove doesn't exist.

Our sanity is based on our ability to believe. In the small things and sometime in the large.

And despite your claims otherwise, coercion can indeed change belief. So true is this that there are multiple sciences dedicated to refining techniques in this regard. All to many of them work shockingly well.

So what do you believe? And why? What drives those beliefs? What gave rise to that drive? And what do you require to change your beliefs? When have you changed them in the past?

Who are you, and why are you that person? What you strive to be and why? Beliefs are their driving motivations are laced up in all of it. Belief in something. Belief in the absence of something. Belief even in nothing at all.

Aren't people interesting?

4
20
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Dogma, by definition, is that which you must accept without argument."

Dogma is everywhere. Scientific as well as religious. Just because a text can be interpreted to contain dogma does not mean that, by definition it is dogma. How dogmatic - or not - a given text is really boils down to who is doing to the teaching and who is doing the listening.

I, for example, was raised with dogmatic science teachers and very liberal religious teachers. My Science teachers taught me to memorize by rote and never to question. My religious teachers taught me to think for myself.

You are interjecting your experience and worldview and claiming it as a truth. You are the dogmatic here, sir The world, in my experience at least, is a hell of a lot more complex that you're portraying it.

6
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"The difference isn't that important. The scientific approach is put everything on the 0.0 list until evidence moves it to the 99.999999 list."

No, that's not science. That's a religion based around science.

Science is a process and doesn't contain a judgment - implicit or explicit - about what should or should not be investigated, questioned, considered or believed.

Individuals make their own choices about what to believe based on some of the results of science. That is belief, not matter which sets of evidence that individual chooses to prioritize. The "scientific approach" doesn't exist. There is no such there. There are merely procedures that can help with gathering evidence.

Everything else is scientific consensus. You choose to believe in some, all or none of the various scientific consensuses, but your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence on various topics is still a belief.

And, statistically speaking, your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence available is probably wrong. Now, as to the evidence for your choices in belief likely being wrong, well...let's ask science...

3
10
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Atheism is not a belief at all. Strictly it is absence of belief"

Wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (or gods) and cannot be. If you accept that there might be then you aren't an athist. You're an agnostic. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing.

The distinction is fine, but very, very important.

"The rational position is that without evidence, we don't know anything at all, which is entirely at odds with the pre-suppositionalists which take a different starting point. This is the basis of the atheist standpoint."

Atheism presupposes knowledge. It presupposes that there is no deity and that there cannot be a deity. Agnosticism waits for the evidence, and doesn't try to say either way which is true.

Atheism is no more rational and theism.

7
24
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Blame Game

"Hey, Government, why can't you stop terrorism?"

Short of wiping out humanity, stopping terrorism isn't possible. To think otherwise is absurdly naive.

So long as humans have the capability to disagree with one another there will be some humans who disagree with the majority. So long as humans disagree with one another, there will be some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs. So long as there are some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs there will be some humans who are willing to kill for their beliefs.

If you want to nip that in the bud you must remove from humans the ability to disagree with one another. In doing so, you have removed from us our defining trait: independence of thought. What you've created at that point is no longer human. It is a separate species, quantitatively different from that which exists now.

The only way to stop terrorism is to end our species forever. Is that what you advocate?

9
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Magical Thinking

The powers that be have persisted in a destructive "war on drugs" for decades against the advice of experts. Why should this be different? So long as they can find one or two tame "experts" for every thousand experts that say they're wrong, they'll persist in the course they feel has the best chance of getting them elected.

The truth is not relevant to politics.

12
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: re. San Bernadino killings

Do you really think that matters in this debate? Not "should matter", but "actually does matter"?

8
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"We" is "society at large".

More specifically, "we" is "those of us who can vote, now or in the next election cycle" as this is when this particular topic will be decided for our generation. And probably for the one or two that come after us as well.

"We" need to talk about this. Amongst ourselves in smaller groups, in larger fora and yes, at the ballot box. "We" will be setting laws about this via our elected representatives here in the next few years. Civil disobedience via using outlawed software will only get individuals thrown in jail.

To be more blunt about this: the USA - amongst others - has proven via the "war on drugs" taht they have no problem whatsoever throwing a significant percentage of their population in jail for "crimes" (such as possession of personal amoutns of soft drugs like marijuana) that don't have an effect on society at large and don't pose a danger to anyone other than the individual being jailed.

Disobedience is more than reason enough for the powers that be to spend hundreds of billions of dollars jailing tens of millions of people.

If you care about this problem, then "you" needs to be part of "we" and "we" have to do something about it. Otherwise the "war on encryption" will replace the "war on drugs" as the new cash cow for the prison industry, and your open source VPN, IM or torrent client will be like a gigantic beacon pointing directly at you screaming "me! Me! Lock me up, I'm guilty of disobedience!"

And no, you won't be able to hide from them. Law enforcement agencies don't give up budget. With the war on drugs winding down, they need a new target.

Please help us ensure that those of us who think encryption is important aren't the not that target.

25
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Rational" is hard to define. There are a bunch of Randians who honestly and earnestly believe that altruism doesn't exist. They believe that everyone is selfism and that altruism is merely selfishness in disguise. I don't believe that. I believe selfishness and altruism to be two points along a spectrum and that human behaviors varies greatly along this spectrum depending on a combination of individual and circumstances.

Both the Randians and I can point to science that can be interpreted to back up our viewpoints.

So who is "rational" here? Who gets to determine "rational", especially when you are not even attempting to thinly veil your belief that "rational" equates to "correct"? (Or that "rational" means "what you, personally" believe, which you also seem to think is by default correct*.)

I can interpret the King James version of the Bible such that it demands extremism. I can also interpret it such that it demands love, caring and respect. I can do the same thing for pretty much every religious text out there.

I'm no fan of most religions, but what society needs to become less tolerant of is bigotry. Religion versus religion versus atheism versus yet more religion is pointless. why don't we work on "tolerating one another's differences", and work from there towards "celebrating one another's differences"? that makes for a much better world.

<sarcasm>In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me - rationally - why your form of bigotry is more "rational" than anyone else's. Maybe you can include how it makes the world a better place. This is the internet, after all, and we're all just dying to hear more about why we should hate one or more identifiable groups of people. It really helps build the world I - or most people - want to live in.</sarcasm>

And as for your "dogma is dogma" crack: you're full of shit. Religious texts aren't binary. They are documents that are interpreted to have personal meaning to each individual who studies them. You have no more right to tell anyone that a religious text must be interpreted in a binary fashion as any so-called religious leader.

The hypocrisy dripping off your posts is tangible.

*Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another.

18
14
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The 'moderates' make up the overwhelming number of believers in Islam. I'm pretty sure that it is the minority who get labeled "perversion" in just about any context. Just sayin'...

16
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The problem, really, is trust. Even if it were possible to build technologies that allow for law enforcement access (and something along the lines of mandatory key escrow might be doable, with a big enough bureaucracy,) there is no way that you'll convince me that our glorious leaders won't abuse that power.

Having spies spy on us in order to see if we've dark sided and are about to fly some planes into things? Okay, fine. But the instant they start using that capability to detect petty crimes (say, buying marijuana, copyright infringement for personal use, or grey market importation of goods) we're into a completely different world.

This is all of it - all of it - a question about the very principle of the presumption of innocence.

Our society only functions because - by and large - we ignore the petty, day-to-day crimes that we all commit. Each and every one of us breaks the law - knowingly or not - several times a day. If we could see every violation of every individual and chose to act on that, our entire way of life would collapse.

We couldn't reasonably prosecute everyone, several times a day. We couldn't expect people to live in fear all day every day that they might be fined or jailed for something they didn't even know was illegal. We cannot expect any citizen to know the totality of the laws in their own jurisdictions, let alone all jurisdictions they interact with digitally or physically.

How would we pay for it? Where does the money for those fines come from? The money for the lawyers, the judges, the jails?

This discussion is what is missing in this debate

Real world limits on the capabilities of spies. Limits on the sharing of information. Limits on what they will look for, what they will prosecute, how the information uncovered will be used. Real world consequences if those limits are worked around, loopholed or otherwise abused.

Maybe the ability to scan our communications is necessary in order to stop the Really Bad Things from happening. If this is the case, then before we even have a discussion about what compromises in technology we're willing to put up with in order to enable that, we need to have a VERY public discussion about how we're going to limit law enforcement use of those powers. FOREVER.

53
0

Russian "Pawn Storm" expands, rains hell on NATO, air-gapped PCs

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: How do you get the data out?

If it has a speaker and a microphone it has a comns system, so long as another system I can pwn also have a speaker and microphone. I can also use LEDs and cameras. Throughput is another question entirely...

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: How do you get the data out?

Well, by definition they wouldn't be "compatible with Windows and NTFS" in that they wouldn't be mountable by Windows. You would have to have code that read those filesystems and them mounted them. I don't know of any commercial ones off the top of my head, but I have written several in my day.

The keys to making it work are as follows:

1) Identify which blocks are currently marked as "not in use" by the primary file system. Write your data to those blocks.

2) Develop your filesystem such that you write the file metadata with the data. This allows the primary file system to overwrite blocks you have used and you can still extract data from the blocks that haven't been overwritten. This "store metadata with the data" trick is frequently used in today's object storage filesystems, and it is quite possible one of the open source ones could be modified for this purpose without too much effort.

3) Be very aware of the restrictions of writing to USB flash drives. Study Reduced Block Commands and do a lot of testing to make sure that you can reliably write to the blocks that are actually the ones identified by the file system as "not in use" instead of writing to the blocks as innumerate by the controller. Many USB devices are FAT aware and so actually lie to the FAT filesystem as part of their wear-levelling. (This is very rare, and only seen in really high-end stuff.)

Back in the day, when I tried to do this stuff, Truecrypt's hidden partitions barely worked on metal, let alone flash, so I rolled my own. Given that you can now "hide" Truecrypt partitions on things, I am sure that there is lots of code to look at which might show the "how" without having to go too "dark net".

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: How do you get the data out?

Why?

Hoover up all .doc, .pdf. ppt etc files with various keywords. Copy over all database files you can find. Anything that looks like it contains password info and encryption keys.

After that's done, copy over any .doc, .pdf .ppt files that didn't match your filters. If you still have space, copy over any encrypted files too. Do this all as copies to a shadow file system that the OS isn't aware of so nobody sees you filling up the drive. If someone copies something over then the OS overwrites some of the stuff your bots got. Oh well. The rest of it will get fired up to you ASAP and you recover what you can.

Anyone who has done data recovery from a crashed drive will probably begood at guessing what's important, even without seeing the system.

4
0

Windows Phone won't ever succeed, says IDC

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Did Microsoft forget to pay IDC this quarter?

45
2

Fujitsu CTO: Analysts might think we're 'crazy', but OpenStack here we come

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Helion Public cloud is closing. Helion private cloud is in fact doign quite well and finding more and more customers each quarter.

0
0

And the reasons for buying new IT gear are as follows ...

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Hah!

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: if you want to see long life equipment...

HP Laserjet II and LaserJet III+ models were the absolute pinnacle of printer design. Best damned printers mankind ever produced. Shame about everything since.

2
0

Target settles with banks for $40m after data breach

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

No, that is not the question.

The question is: did the individuals running the company make more money (in bonuses, etc) by doing IT wrong than they would have by doing IT right?

What is good for the company or its customers is not actually relevant in the company is run.

0
0

Per-core licences coming to Windows Server and System Center 2016

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

RedHat is not Linux

No, it's systemd.

9
1

Google cloud outage caused by failure that saw admins run it manually ... and fail

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oops!

Well, for one, you check to see if Charlie is advertising a route back to Bob. If both networks are willing to register connectivity to one another and have high reputation, you trust them. If, however, you have a record of someone else owning Charlie's block who not only does advertise their connectivity but participates in the reputation system and then Bob starts advertising about connectivity to Charlie that Charlie is in turn not also advertising about, you either fail to accept the route or you squash it all the way down the reputation system so that the slightest glitch means they get dropped.

0
1

Wikimedia tries AI to catch bad edits

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Filter feeder

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill

0
0

Forums