Who needs security?
Yeah, toss in security and see what happens.
3947 posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
Who needs security?
Yeah, toss in security and see what happens.
Look, lets break this down.
What are the facts...
1) Did CA snarf the data? Or did the buy it from the Cambridge professor who wrote the app that collected the data and snarfed the friends data that wasn't locked down. (And friends of friends?)
2) Trump's Campaign may have used the data and services which were paid for , to CA. So what is Trump's culpability / liability? The answer is none. Of course you should talk to a lawyer because 90% of the news on Trump is negative (which shows bias) . So Trump is clear.
The issue is how did they get the data? Facebook allowed the research to occur and what you have is a breach of contract by the professor who sold his code and the data to CA.
So, depending on the contract, CA could be guilty of somethings (IANAL and don't know UK law) but in the US, could just be forced to delete the data. The Cambridge University Prof? He's in a lot of hot water
CA? Some. Trump? None.
As to candidates using analytics and data? Started with Obama. (In Chicago BTW...) Oh and of course FB was happy to share w Obama...
Just keeping it real.
You do realize that FB and Google have a way to tie your alias to your real id?
When you consider that... you're not as hidden as you think.
Trump has a keen sense of what people want and what they don't want.
The real reason Trump won was that Hillary was soooo bad as a candidate.
There's rumors that the MSM helped Trump by giving him a lot of free air time because they didn't think he'll win the primary or could beat Clinton in the main election.
The election was sooo tilted in Clinton's favor, its her own fault.
1) Mail Server... she set it up (w Obama's blessing) as a way to avoid having her communication available for FOIA and the Official Records Act. Were it not for Guccifer busting her... she would have gotten away with it.
2) She avoided campaigning in the Midwest. Seriously. Three states went to Trump which was the difference. Clinton was so sure she had them in the bag, she hung out with the rich elite in Hollywood rather than hang with the plebs.
There's more and over the next couple of years, it will come out just how far Obama, the DNC and Clinton went to steal the election. Just ask Bernie.
Seriously... if you're an American, regardless of your political beliefs... A serious set of criminal acts occurred and you should be outraged. This will be Obama's legacy. This will be Hillary Clinton's legacy.
A criminal conspiracy too big to prosecute. Or so they hope.
Because I don't use FB, does FB have the right to collect and compile data on me?
The question becomes one of right of privacy since I never entered into an agreement with FB to capture data about me, a non user.
So if a friend uploads a photo where I'm in the shot, does that give FB the right to tag me? Track me? spy on me?
That's the real question.
And you have a Facebook account?
If you read the article... the theft is that the Good Professor got access to the data for Research and that he later monetized the use of his algos and the data gleaned from FB. Its only theft because only FB wants to be able to monetized their data.
Its really not theft but breech of contract, but it sounds better to claim that the company which paid the good professor for the data and his algos 'stole' the data.
There are a few takeaways...
1) Most people on FB are foolish and don't understand that TANSTAAFL and that they are the product.
2) While not theft, it's a question of breech of contract on the Professor's part. The company bought something that the professor had no right to sell.
3) There will be a lawsuit over this... a couple of government investigations that go no where, and most people who had their data used will not understand the fuss and go meh.
Life will go on, and Zuck will still be worth billions because Gruber was right.
You take an Obit and try to make it political.
While he lost in the genetic lottery and had ALS, the NHS had nothing to do with his long life suffering from ALS.
There were a lot of factors that helped him have a longer life. A lot of it goes to his genetics and his mental fortitude. (Hawkings lived as long as he did because he's Hawkings.)
Yes it was the Pan Am building. When I was a kid, I took the flight with my parents and siblings on one of those larger Sikorksky twin rotor units. (The same one that crashed.)
From the building to JFK on an international flight.
To your point... it depends on the city and the type of aircraft and then there's a minimum altitude. It will vary city by city. In Chicago there are only a couple of places you can land so YMMV.
If memory serves... mine had LEDs and I forget the model. We're going back over 40 yrs.
Why play with a calculator when you had computers. ;-)
There was only one real computer magazine at that time (BYTE).
Yeah, lots of toys... unfortunately we fried our boards when we were soldering in the PS cabling.
(It was a cheap learning experience...)
If we wanted a computer game... we had to write our own. Today.... kids just go online, or just buy it.
How many people remember "Hello Sailor" ? ;-)
Mine's the jacket with the HP RPN calculator in his pocket.
You're thinking of ShotSpotter and there isn't a chance they'll put it on 280. ShotSpotter is used in the hood and the hood alone. Now, the Oakland flatlands, I'll bet there's one on every corner.
Come to Chicago. Its not just for the Hood. Its on most of the street corners these days.
Shot detection is triangulation.
However it doesn't work or work well in this situation. Depending on the air rifle, getting a sound signature is going to be difficult. On a rifle where the pellet is subsonic there isn't much of a signature.
Even when traveling supersonic the location will be difficult to triangulate.
Plus the stations are static and expensive.
Want to bet that when they catch the guy/gal, the shooter will be a member of Antifa.
You need to do a bit more homework.
There are high pressured .35 thru .50 caliber air rifles that can send a pellet with enough force to kill someone up to 200 yrds away. You don't have to 'blow a hole' through someone to kill them.
Do some homework before you post such garbage.
What would happen if they hit the window and cause the driver to swerve ?
Yes they sell pellet guns (air rifles and pistols).
And while many think of them as toys, some of them are more than powerful enough to kill.
Its that type of mentality that should not be present in anyone running projects that have to deal with safety and could put human lives at risk.
No. Not exactly.
In this case they couldn't sue the guy driving the bulldozer. Or the rank and file city workers.
They could sue the company contracted to do the work.
(Khosla would win.)
They could sue the City government, and again Khosla would win and win big. The individual has immunity, the city doesn't. (And their are limits to the immunity)
Immunity would not shield the city because Kholsa could argue that it was a malicious act and it was done to harass him and his family over this legal battle. It would be an abuse of power.
In short it would be the worst thing the city could do.
Having said that... if the fencing was on an easement granted to the city and they needed to do work, or the fence was put in without a permit... it would be different.
AFAIK, the coastal act makes the beach public property. Khosla isn't fighting that. He's saying that the use of his land to gain access to the beach opens him up to a host of liability issues. As well as maintenance issues. (E.g. someone trips and hurts themselves on the path to the beach, they can sue Khosla for $$$.
He puts in a sidewalk, he has to spend $$ to maintain it and again, he has the liability. )
He could sell the land on his own, but he was asking for $$$$$ when it should have been $$$. Eminent Domain would have taken care of this and would have solved it... but it was never done.
Federal law does trump state law, however... even that wouldn't stop the city from using Eminent Domain, or forcing an easement. (Although Khosla is right about the liability issue and potential nuisance suits. )
IMHO he should sell the strip, put up a 30 ft high privacy fence and then call it a day.
In the US there is a thing called Eminent Domain.
The City / County / State could force the sale to the city enough land to put in a fence and a public walkway to the beach. The cost of the land would be roughly what has been his tax assessment per acre.
He's already facing millions in fines and it would solve this issue once and for all.
I don't know why they haven't attempted to force a constructive easement since the beach is "land locked" meaning that Khosla ?sp? owns all of the overland access to the beach which is public property, so he would have to grant the easement. He could put up a fence to limit their access and to keep pedestrians on the easement only.
Either way, he's being a total prick about it and will lose i court.
Its not a 'leak'.
The standards are being discussed and the vendors are part of the discussion.
They are baking the silicon in anticipation that the spec will not change significantly by the time it is ratified.
This happens all the time. The vendors don't want to be the last ones coming to market.
Did you not read the next sentence?
This was probably done to avoid the expense of a long trial.
Yest M$ will sue you in to submission.
How many people have a spare 25-30K (USD) lying around to make a frivolous lawsuit go away?
That's just for starters.
If he went to court and was found guilty of copyright infringement, he could end up owing $$$$$$$$$$$$
Remember those cases where a woman pirated a bunch of music a few years back? (Maybe a decade ago? )
The legal system is what it is. Like I said in my post, I've seen bad judges, lousy lawyers where I ended up having to write $$$ to get the issue resolved. Heck, I'm still involved in a case where I'm going to lose money even if I win and I have little recourse to recoup those losses because it will cost me more than its worse and its a gamble.
Its not corruption. Its the system.
BTW, a neat trick... Lawyers will say whatever they want, even if its a lie. They'll merely say that they misspoke. Its only when its under oath that they won't lie if they suspect that they'll get caught.
His defense argued in the appeal that the license was real.
Imagine if you bought in bulk a purfume. Call it brand X.
You then got a bunch of empty brand C perfume bottles, cleaned them up and then refilled them with brand X perfume you bought in bulk.
Its the real product, in the real package only you recycled it.
Did you break the law?
The perfume is real. The product is in a real albeit recycled bottle / box. Or missing the box, and you sell it at a discount to the stuff in the factory box at a retail store. So what laws did you break?
And the sentencing does fit. There's a lot of leeway on what the judge can do here.
Welcome to the US legal system.
The argument is that regardless of the fact that he just restored the existing license on the PC with a clean new install, is he a licensed MS distributor?
So does he have the legal right to refurbish and sell a clean system with MS on it?
That's their argument... and his defense in the appeal is that he didn't counterfeit the license key but used a software tool to fix the existing machine and the legitimate software that was already there. Or so the argument goes.
Its not lunacy. Welcome to the US legal system.
The defense raises an interesting argument. I mean really compelling.
With respect to your comment, the judges are regular people and understand the law but will often make stupid decisions. (I know from first hand experience.) There is nothing magical and mystical about a judge.
In addition, its also who makes the more compelling argument in court. Keep in mind the guy pleaded guilty to copyright infringement. This was probably done to avoid the expense of a long trial.
At the same time... the appellate judge may still say no, depending on the argument raised by the prosecution, and then it would have to then be appealed at the state supreme court to hear these arguments.
Common sense is still common sense. To be fair, look around you. How many people do you see who make mistakes and ignore common sense?
I hope this guy gets off. But I'm sure there's more to the case than the compelling argument.
You have a laptop that can fit a 2.5" disk?
What are you trying to do?
If I want to set up a fast data response.... that would be 3 x 2TB NVMe.
On a single node that's 6TB of raw fast disk.
Then you have 5 open SATA slots. You can put slower larger HDDS, or SSDs (4TB) which would be slower. I would rather use SSDs because 5x4 = 20TB raw space which is enough. You can get 8TB HDDs which is currently the sweet spot. Larger HDDs exist like 10 or 12 TB but you pay a premium. The other issue is the amount of heat and energy used by the HDDs.
So when you're limited by the number of M.2 slots, you will end up paying a premium for the higher density. Note, I would end up using 2 of the SATA SSDs mirrored for the OS and not boot from NVMe. While that may seem counter intuitive... my pcs run Linux and run 24x7x365.
Keep in mind... 2010 Hadoop clusters had 1 or 2 U boxes w 4 Hot Swap 3.5" SATA / SAS . 2 CPUs w 8 cores or 16 threads. (Xeon E5s) Drives were 2 or 4 TB depending on your budget.
Now you have a single CPU w 18 cores == 36 virtual cores. which would mean 4-5 older servers.
When you consider that... it puts things in perspective.
And yes, I'm not running a PC game on these machines. ;-)
Your link is to a 4TB drive.
Not the 15TB or anything close to that.
I can get 4TB drives and 2TB M.2 drives.
Man, I have to ask... how many here play with PBs of data?
Geez, I love how these 'experts' who don't work with data at scale talk about taking snapshots and backups.
News flash... Hadoop has been around for 10 years now. You don't take backups of hadoop clusters. you take snapshots and xfer the data to another cluster. The cluster's resiliency and backup to another cluster is it. What, you're going to back up to tape? Really? As someone with half a shred of thought points that its not the incremental backup that takes time.. but the restoring of the data.
I don't know why I was down voted. LUKs is a OS feature. And yes, it takes CPU cycles. Hardware encryption would be different and I agree its not there. But its possible to add and based on the anticipated price point... not that expensive.
The smallest footprint is the M.2 NVMe cards which currently max out at 2TB and cost as much as most PCs. (Microcenter's in house specials)
Those cards are about $1250 apiece (give or take).
The new motherboards have 3 M.2 slots so you can put 3TB raw of fast storage, then 5 or so SATA III drives.
This would allow for tiered storage on a pc using an i9 chip w 12-14 cores. Going higher would be a waste because your PC is limited to 128GB of memory. Now you have a machine that if properly configured would cost about 12K but would be able to act as a server with enough horse power to do some serious work. Unlike servers that are 1U and 2U in height for racks, I can put these in custom cases and water cool them for quiet running. (Silent running means low TDP chips <= 65Watts ) [Add in a large 120mm or larger case fan running w a lower RPM, ~20-27db noise range to keep the air moving for memory and SSDs]
Note: This may sound expensive, but when you consider the horsepower today versus building out a cluster of lower powered servers with the same power... its a wash. Less noise, heat and power.
There's a lot you can do with a small cluster of these machines.. ;-)
Try buying anything > 4TB SSD drives.
They may exist but they aren't hitting distributors and open markets. Looks like its OEM sales directly to big vendors only. (IBM, HPE, etc... ) The largest SSD/NVMe drive on the market for business or consumer purchase is 4TB.
The flame isn't for you or anyone here, but for Samsung and others talking about products yet not available to anyone outside of the major players.
The short answer... you don't. You look at distributed file systems where the data is replicated across the cluster and then replicated to a back up cluster.
Luks would be for encryption at rest and can be applied to any drive. Were they to do anything about encryption, it would mean adding some hardware to do the encryption of the disk within the disk.
Few people care about >1 GBit downstream, the bottleneck usually is the upstream.
Sorry but that is BS. Most residential users want faster downstream because they are cutting the cord and are streaming video. So in a family of 4, most likely you have 4 people in 4 rooms streaming video and/or music.
In terms of upstream... it depends on what you're doing. But those people are fewer...
No, I didn't forget that.
The cost of laying the fiber for the cell tower is cost prohibitive when you compare it against a point to point connection via microwave connections.
I thought that was obvious.
In terms of even pulling fiber in the city... we had an issue where we rent space for a cell tower on our condo building. They wanted to add fiber but rather than use the existing conduit owned by Ameritech, they wanted to go through a different wall and then run the fiber in the open in our garage space. I was able to nix it, and they went back and did a deal with Ameritech to use their conduit.
I personally would love to have fiber to my unit. I could easily pull fiber to each room. While I don't even own a 4K TV I would love to have a high bandwidth throughout the house and in my SOHO lab. The only problem is that most of my older machines don't have 10GbE so it would be a short term waste.
Actually if you can't get fiber to the house then you most likely won't see fiber to the tower. That's pretty much a given. (Hint, you have to run the fiber and that's the expensive part. So you can run multiple fibers for the same price offering both telco and consumer fiber.)
In much of the rural US you will see cell towers with microwave point to point antennas to handle the communication from the cell to carrier.
Yup. Even if the clause is enforceable, its rarely ever used.
The issue is that for some companies they are introducing you to their customer. Its written in to many contracts as an 'anti-poaching' clause.
The reason companies loathe to enforce it...
1) You're worth X, the relationship of customer is worth Y*X where Y is > 1.
2) Its a punitive measure. Meaning they spend $$$ to stop you from working at said client where they will never collect enough in damages to make it worth their while.
If you don't sign the new agreement, you're gone.
So you had to make the choice of staying or leaving... its easier to stay and then plan your exit than deal with a sudden exit.
As to the lawsuit.
That was predictable. Because you worked for them and are now creating a competing product? Its a given you'll get sued. The lawsuit had merit and a given. You should have anticipated it. That's not to say that you would not be successful, you were, but that the lawsuit was predictable. (Yes, it sucks, welcome to America where lawyers can be found under any rock... )
You do realize that they already did it, right.
When IBM has you sign a separate employee agreement, its usually tied to additional compensation which is what makes the contract binding. So if she got a promotion... and they hand her this contract... that's enough.
Now she could have gone to a lot of different companies except those specifically listed. No lawsuit no gardening period.
You should have signed it.
There are a couple of clauses you need to pay attention to... the one where if a clause is deemed unenforceable, only that paragraph is voided and the rest of the contract is still valid.
Second if that paragraph is unenforceable, and they attempt to sue... especially in the UK, you are going to be made whole. (Loser pays) Also IBM and other companies attempt to use the paragraph to intimidate you. Meaning if you left, and went to work for a competitor or another company they deemed a competitor or customer... they will have their lawyers send you a harassing letter.
You can then tell them to pound sand and ignore it.
Like I said in a response to an earlier post... the regular IBM contract's non-compete is overly broad. You have a right to work in your field. If you had to sign a separate contract ... with consideration paid to you... and that clause wasn't overly broad... they can and will sue you.
Now... in your case... specifically to your case... you claimed to be working on a piece of software that your old company was working on. They could sue you for IP theft if your new work was based on anything taken from the old company. (e.g. notes, docs or code) You're a direct competitor.
Again YMMV and your lawsuit was not an issue of a non-compete clause.
While the non-compete is common, however how enforceable the clause is... depends on a lot of things.
First the wording... does it present you from your right to work?
Second the length of term of the non-compete.
Your Jimmy Johns example is bunk. Not that I doubt the clause is in there.. but that it would be held enforceable.
(Yes, I did work for the borg. I did have to sign a second contract where the clause was enforceable. And yes, I talked with a lawyer who is familiar with IBM and gave me the straight dope. )
I've seen and signed many other contracts with non-competes. Bottom line, if the non-compete is enforceable, and you sign it... you should honor it.
It depends... did she already start work at Microsoft or not? If not, then she's not getting paid.
If she already started to work for Microsoft... they may still be paying her while this works itself out in court.
However... here's the rub.
If you're a rank and file employee, there's a clause in your contract that basically prohibits you from working for anyone who's a customer of IBM. This clause is overly broad and isn't enforceable since you have a right to work and earn a living.
Some employees are asked to sign a different contract. (Usually when you come in from an acquisition and they hand you a retention package, you get that contract.) Here, they have a paragraph that prohibits only a couple of companies that are considered competitors. This paragraph is legal and binding. * The major difference is that you have the ability to go work for more than those companies. For me... I was prohibited from working for Oracle or Microsoft. Others could be different.
There are other cases between companies and they ended up settling out of court. The kicker is that most clauses are 6 months and by the time that you end up getting in to trial, the non-compete is up.
*There could be an issue with the term of non-compete. For me, it was 6 months. Here, it looks like a year. The courts may determine that the period is too long and that would invalidate the clause. YMMV depending on the lawyers and judge.
Its a bit unfair to assume the comparison against a desktop where you have the ability to handle the TDP by tossing a honking radiator on top of it with a large fan to push air to cool it. So no duh! He's comparing the iPad to a laptop.
Even here... iPad lacks fan so its still not a fair comparison.
One app / feature that the author missed... Duet.
I can use my iPad Pro 12.9" as a second monitor for my MacBook Pro while traveling.
In terms of work... I tend to use the iPad as my library with over 50 work related texts, or for downloading and watching movies while on a flight and I don't want to do any reading. Or emails when I can't take the laptop out. Also as a second terminal if I need to do a remote login. (Need to have the case with the keyboard for that to work. )
I do agree that the gestures and multi tasking is a bit bizarre. They changed it from a simple swipe then scrolling to find the second App, to something that doesn't seem to want to work. Lets hope they get it right. (Hint: add an on/off switch in the System Preferences for the app to select it to be in the list for second pane and got back to the original way )
He's slowly killing himself by staying in the embassy. Its a self imposed prison.
The embassy can at any time tell him to leave.
So he goes to jail in the UK. He gets set out of the country. I don't see the UK letting him go to Ecuador. He's been a total prat and has given the UK a black eye. Note: Its possible a liberal judge who doesn't like Trump will let him go to Ecuador.
And of course... unless they are transporting him like a prisoner... (most likely not) Unless there's a direct flight from the UK to Australia, he'll most likely have to get off the plane. There, he can get off and switch to a different plane on a flight to Ecuador. Even here, he may face some challenges, but still its possible to do it.
At this time, the US has made no indication that they want Assange.
If he walks out... he will be taken in to custody by the UK and will have to deal with jumping bail.
When he does his time, pays his fine... its up to the UK to determine what to do with him.
They will most likely toss him from the UK and put him on a plane to Australia.
If they are nice... they may let him get on a plane to Ecuador. (Most likely not)
So he goes to Australia.
Here... the Australians can take his passport away. Now that he has an Ecuadorian passport, he might be able to leave before the US decides that they want him. The Australian Government is more than likely willing to send him to the US considering his conviction while a teen for hacking US government systems.
That's most likely where he'll get nabbed.
The bottom line... he's not going to be staying there much longer.
This actually wasn't a waste of money.
Its really more of a sign that Assange is getting tossed of the couch in the embassy.
It was a long shot and worth the gamble. If he won... he walks out, boards a flight to Ecuador.
If he loses... he has to figure out his next move.
He had to know it was a long shot.
I don't know if there's a size limit on a diplomatic pouch. ;-)
So stuff him in to one...
I don't know how well it would fly, but you get the idea.
And it gets to the heart of the matter.
Had to upvote you for that.
I think that was implied. The point was that the UK could say get out and leave never to come back. Or they could say... you came to us on an Aussie passport, so back to Australia you go.
Most likely they'll send him back to Australia who has to take him...
yeah. He's still there.
Mk1? In the US that could either be a US Optics / Leupold / Nightforce scope sitting on a nice .308 tactical rifle, or something similar. :-)
Not that they'll shoot. Just watching and waiting...
When I was in the UK (London) I walked by the area, not really knowing that was where he was hiding. I saw a bobby standing around... just thought it was normal since that was Embassy row.
They can sneak him out into an embassy car, so it can't be searched. But what then? Put him in a burlap sack marked as a diplomatic pouch? The watch him get loaded on a diplomatic jet and flown away?
I mean its possible, but I really can't see that happening.
What I could see happening is the staff packing his bags, putting him in a car, tricking him in to believing its an embassy car, then dropping a dime on his arse as he's on his way to London City airport.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018