Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@AC ...

You do realize that your manager who you think is getting a bonus, isn't.

When you've been made redundant, what makes you think that they need said manager anymore?

And what makes you think he's getting a bonus? (Hint: He's not.)

Re: Oh right,

Considering that its being published on Thursday March 30, not so much.

But one should point out that 'ultra high' secure buildings have little electric 'tumblers' that are placed in the corner of the windows and vibrate the windows so that no optical eavesdropping can occur. Also the windows are shielded to block radio signals so you can't get cell phone signals in the building...

Also the equipment may be on line conditioning power supplies that could impact that vector too.

(Although I think that would only work if the machine was set up to use the power line as a way to communicate. ... )

Tomatoe or Tomato that is the question Ketchup or Red Sauce? ;-)

The problem with the Trump Presidency is that he's being kneecapped by his predecessor's administration.

If you look at what he's done in the first 65 days since being in office, he's done a lot all the while he's been harassed by the Dems and the Press. The problem is that the Press and the Dems don't want him to be a success. (Trump also has to learn the rules of the sport called politics. )

With respect to the FBI and this article, they can easily get the other domains as well as let Trump play golf. Its just a matter of the FBI being tech savvy, which they are not. They could go and fight for control of the domain to shut it down. (Free clue, when you have a log in screen that is meant to confuse someone... you lose. ) All it takes is a lawyer, who happens to be on the payroll. Oh wait, that's called the DoJ or even lawyers who work directly for the FBI.

The real question is why hasn't this happened yet? My only answer is that someone needs to hit them with a clue by four unless we're missing something....

@Shadow .. Re: The rest of us are 100% sure it won't do a damned thing.

Its actually simpler than that.

Force the telcos and internet providers to offer a feature. *666 where it will report the last call to your number as a robo call. Then the phone company will look at the actual pen data and not the CID which can be spoofed while the actual number can't.

If it goes back to a SIP provider, the SIP provider will have to provide their IP logs so that the caller can be traced. (Assuming its a SIP call and not someone who set up an actual land line. Which would already be game over.)

When you trace back the robo call to its origin, you can now go after them regardless of the country and you can extradite them to the US because the US should be able to enforce the computer laws against them.

Only thing stopping them is loss of revenue ... anyone remember the pink sheet contracts ISPs had for spammers?

@AC Re: Isn't it their job?

All intelligence agencies gather information about friend and foe alike. To assume otherwise is dangerous.

The question is what does the agency do with the data? With whom do they share it?

Trump may be right, however you, I and everyone here will be long dead before the truth sees the light of day, if ever.

@Charles 9 Re: Easily fixed

I pay for the WSJ digital edition.

But then again, according to WSJ I've been a subscriber since 1965. (My account got merged with my dad's account. But I have been a subscriber for over 25 years now. )

I use Adblock, and NoScript. So FB and Google don't see me. I do see some ads because they are being hosted by WSJ directly however, its a paid content site so its less intrusive.

I think you'll start to see more paid content sites for those that have actual value. As to other news sites, they make their money off their TV ads and sites if they start to work to bypass filters... they stop using them. I no longer read Fortune for that very reason. Content is not worth white listing them.

@VinceH Re: A company

The cynic in me is suggesting the (perhaps longer term) plan is to have adverts that are more subtle, in the hope that people wouldn't recognise them as adverts - and that the above is therefore a canned statement ready for when someone inevitably spots and points out that they're using it for advertising.

This is sometimes called stealth marketing. Getting to the consumer before their 'radar' comes up and realizes its an advert.

You either create a clever ad or guerilla ad that catches the consumer off guard or one that they want to see, or you do something clever like product placement. (E.g. Going for a cup of Sanka because it has that deep dark flavor you enjoy... or having a character throw a hissy fit because the store was out of Lucky Strike cigarettes because all the other brands taste like crap. ) [Think reference to sponsored radio shows in the 30's and 40's. ]

For example, if you had a girls who was between the ages of 6 and 12, and you asked Alexa for today's weather forecast... "Hey bob, today's going to be rainy and miserable all day. Rather than stay indoors, why not take Sally [your girl] to see the new 'Beauty and the Beast' that just hit theaters yesterday! I can order you tickets if you'd like." ...

There's your ad placement and you may not realize it...

Now imagine what would happen if you tied Google in with Tinder... That would be scary.

Re: Chatbots could totally be a trillion-dollar industry

" Chatbots could totally be a trillion-dollar industry

If true, it would prove either that Marketing are geniuses or too many consumers are dumb."

There's this guy named Gruber... ;-)

Re: A company

Yes, and the sad thing is what they said here in their 'corrected' political speak...

" We’re continuing to experiment with new ways to surface unique content for users and we could have done better in this case."

Translation is that they are sorry that their attempt at monetizing the stream further didn't go off so well, and they'll think of other ways to further profit from your device.

Think about this. You bought the device, you pay for the internet connection and they want to spam you with ads? Not to mention that you have no clue as to how much data they are slurping... er I mean streaming from your home without your knowledge. So you are paying for the privilege to not only be spied upon but also spammed.

Re: So at a little above 5fps it can identify that someone pointing a gun at the camera...

Actually less.

The trick is to ignore the background and to focus on the people and their immediate surrounding.

This reduces the amount of image that you have to process and then you can isolate on the hand.

So first frame, you have the most work to find the people, search for hands and then once isolated, you can track the hands to see if they are holding something in the subsequent frames.

To your point, yes, in a video or movie, the lighting is usually done to make the gun stand out.

But suppose we took a video of a group of men standing and wearing dark clothing. Then one pulls out a gun, while another pulls out a cell phone, both black and the phone's screen is dark. They just pull it out and have it at the hip. Do this again with the people wearing dark gloves. Then again in dimmer light.

You'd be surprised at the results. (maybe not.) I guess the resolution would also matter.

BTW, on the James Bond Reference.... would the system recognize the gun that was made out of a cigarette holder, and the cigarette case and lighter? (What if he was palming the gun with only the cigarette holder showing? Would a pencil held like that also trigger the system?)

And of course, the gun Daniel Craig is holding is most likely a Sig Sauer P226 but could be a P220 (You can make out the de-cocking lever and its a full sized frame) It also looks to be an older model since its missing the front rail. [Yes, I own and shoot Sigs. ;-) ]

@Haku ... Re: Can it also tell the difference between a real gun and a Sega light gun?

Well as a Yank...

1) Cleveland Ohio. There was a 13yr old who was big for his age, looking like he was 17. He was also mentally challenged. He was sitting on a swing with an airsoft pistol where the orange plastic part of the barrel was broken off. This gun, looked real.

Someone called in to the police and reported him. The person told the 911 operator that the gun was probably fake.

The police rolled up on him and the kid reached for the gun. The younger officer shot and killed him.

2) In Chicago, we have gang bangers who are as young as 13 or 14 years old carrying real pistols.

3) We also have kids carrying airsoft guns and show them to people on the street in an attempt to rob them. (While IL passed a CCW law that took effect Jan 1, 2015, most do not own guns and fewer have CCW permits which is on the rise) So, how do you tell a real gun from a fake gun that was made to look real?

Every morning, I open up the Trib site to see how many shot and killed over night. (Yes, its that bad in some neighborhoods.) The issue isn't guns but the gang violence over turf. Due to the recent lawsuits and BLM protests, the police are less likely to be aggressive because they want to keep their jobs and don't want to face a civil suit. The gang bangers are more afraid of their higher ups than of the police and there's even video of them taunting the police who were working a crime scene. (Including firing off a gun in an alley a block away)

But back to your point... you can make a homemade gun that fires a .410 shotgun shell using stuff you can buy at a hardware store. (Google zip gun) And it won't look like a gun.

In terms of police hostage situations. Police have killed attackers who had small knives and were high on drugs (L. McDonald [Chicago]) or had a base ball bat and was walking towards the police.

The point is that when you have a hostage situation, even if he's not armed but is in a position to cause harm to the hostage, you will have the police in a situation where they may need to use deadly force. Most times, they'll wait it out.

@AC ... Re: Yes, good idea

Seriously?

The point is that if you post something online, it will haunt you as long as its available.

With respect to DHS scanning your online social media profile... there's a very good reason for that.

Perhaps you don't remember the San Bernardino shooting?

The investigation found that the guy was radicalized by his wife that he brought in to the US to get married. Had they scanned her social media account during the immigration process, they would have found her comments and caught her in a lie. In fact her profile was filled with a couple red flags.

So there is a reason why DHS is now attempting to do this.

Facebook is pulling a brain dead stunt, of course, all your data is theirs.

@Yet anbother anonymous coward... Re: @Orv

No offense, but your comment doesn't make sense.

Every group is part of a risk pool. Its not the existence of a risk pool that's the issue.

My company is a small company so its grouped together with other small companies in the same plan as a way to establish a risk pool. IBM is large enough that not only could it self insure itself, but it could be its own risk pool.

Your insurance rates are based on factors like age, and medical expenses.

The ACA capped the ratio of expenses between the young and the old causing the insurance premiums on younger adults to increase significantly more than older folks however overall they went up for everyone.

The issue wasn't the existence of a risk pool. The issue was that companies came on to the exchanges pricing insurance with no prior history to base their actuarial formulas. Obama promised to make the insurance companies whole, with funds he didn't have. So the insurance companies under priced for the actual risk and lost BILLIONS. Now these insurance companies that got in to the game with Federal Loans, got hammered and all have gone under. Because insurance is regulated by the states, they can only raise premiums by a certain percentage each year, so in year 2, they also lost billions.

The reason they lost billions is that the young healthy people didn't want to pay for something that they didn't want or need. They could have purchased a catastrophic insurance policy that would meet their needs. So the risk pools got skewed and more 'unhealthy' older people jumped on the insurance.

So its not the issue of having risk pools, but the insurance companies not being able to manage their risks. Obama et al thought that could balance the risk by forcing younger people in to buying something that they didn't need. Didn't work out.

This is why the ACA is DOA. There are one or two counties where you can't buy insurance because no one is offering it. In most markets only BC/BS is offering policies once UHG pulls out. And if BC/BS pulls out... what happens when you can't buy insurance and the law requires it?

This is why Trump and the Republicans have an opportunity to fix things. Only problem is that while they agree that ACA is crap, they can't agree on how to fix the damage.

There's so much more but its hard trying to explain it when many here don't have a grasp on both sides of the industry.

@ST ... Re: @ST Kinda misses the point

Son,

1) I am licensed to sell health insurance. (Yeah really. )

2) I purchase health insurance for my corporation.

3) Back in the 90's when you were still in diapers, I purchased individual plans when you could and had to deal with the limited plans that were available.

Again, you really don't know the half of it. Talk to hospital administrators and the problems that ACA created for those in small practices.

@Orv

Actually no.

There are a couple of ways to become a member of group healthcare.

The IEEE used to offer health insurance for its members. They stopped because only older members would take advantage of it because most of the younger members were getting their coverage from their employers who also paid a portion of the insurance if not all of it. Chambers of Commerce used to offer the same thing, some may still do. The problem is that each of these groups are in their own risk pool such that it can get expensive for members because the insurance companies still have to make a profit. (Note: Their profits are limited and they must spend at least a certain percentage of their premium incomes. )

IEEE stopped doing this in the 90's because the premiums became to expensive.

If you're an independent, you can make your wife or significant other an employee and pay them a salary and get group coverage. It only takes two people to become a group.

You also dont' really understand the pre-ACA market.

If you had a pre-existing condition, depending on the condition, you may or may not be able to get coverage. The insurance company could write a rider so that you get coverage for everything but your condition. If you are an employee of a company that offers group insurance, you cannot be denied coverage.

There's also medicaid if you can't afford medical coverage and you make less than the maximum allowed. There were also risk pools for those who can't get coverage.

And yes, I do know a bit about this. I'm also a licensed agent. ;-)

Health insurance is a bit confusing and this is just on the consumer side. You should see what its like to run a small practice.

Obamacare really fscked up the healthcare environment. Socialized medicine is a failure waiting to happen.

@ST Re: Kinda misses the point

Man, you have a really warped view of the world as well as healthcare.

You must be in the UK where the NHS is broken and you have a two tier system. Those only on NHS and those who have a supplemental insurance or those who can afford to pay cash.

You have to realize that under the ACA not everyone has coverage or can afford coverage. You can make too much money to get any discounts, and/or the remaining balance would be more than you could afford.

Prior to the ACA, each state would create funds for risk pools for those who couldn't get insurance. Also there was medicaid. And if you had group insurance you couldn't be denied coverage.

You have no clue about health insurance.

Obamacare/ACA is in a death spiral and is collapsing. No point in having a health care market when you have no insurance companies willing to provide coverage at a loss. Removing ACA is the best thing Trump and Congress can do.

Replacing it with something... that's the hard part because Obama did way to much damage, which was his plan in the first place.

@Tom Dial ... Re: He needs to raise the Hillary defense...

You need to really read the law to understand that there's a gross negligence clause. Placing classified material on an unauthorized server will hit this. Communicating classified material w Sidney B. where his account was hacked and there were at least 3 foreign intelligence agencies who had his emails, not to mention this was how Guccifer exposed Clinton's hidden server.

There's more to it. Most argue incorrectly the need for intent. There was intent, because setting up the server is an intentional act.

There doesn't need to be an actual hack or proof of a hack to be guilty of gross negligence.

@AC Re: He needs to raise the Hillary defense...

You really don't know your facts.

The point is that Hillary did commit a crime but her friends in the WH and at the DoJ rigged the investigation. I could go down the list of things done, or you could spend about a week Googling the facts.

There's more... ;-)

@Codysydney ...

You need to learn US law.

This isn't a criminal lawsuit but a civil lawsuit.

So this isn't anything about a plan to defraud, but about the claims IBM made during the procurement process to win the contract. Its more of a question on their ability to actually deliver the promised solution.

These suits are hard to win and end up either in arbitration or settled out of court. As you point out, scope creep is one issue, however it depends on the contract.

Having written quite a few SOWs and negotiated MSAs, you'd be surprised what goes on.

(Yes, I escaped from the borg many moons ago)