Posts by Ian Michael Gumby 4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
Sorry,
But while a lot of the commentards are ranting and raving about the accuracy...
Think about the technology required to actually build one, and then build one that would be practical for any of the mentioned uses. (Except trying to keep the trains on time. I don't think its possible.)
Yeah I'm one of those guys who wears an automatic watch because I think its cool to have a timepiece made up of hundreds of mechanical moving parts costing $$$ and being hand made, when an electric watch costing $ is probably more accurate.
Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination itself.
For someone who claimed to be a customer of Stratfor, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed...
Think about it for a second from the FBI's point of view. The hack already took place. You can't stop something that already occurred. So the best thing you can do is try to catch all involved. They did that.
You have to consider that those involved in the hack already have copies stashed away, so if you chase after them, you catch a few, if lucky, and then the emails still get out.
By creating a server that they own, the FBI could do more to catch more of those involved.
My last post was rejected... so lets try it again with a slightly different tack.
1) You don't have to be a US citizen in this case to be convicted of espionage. This is not only true for the US but other nations as well. There are enough examples in the history books to show this to be true.
2) Please drop the torture rhetoric. Its not true and you know it. Assange will be handled with kid gloves. Assuming his is charged, and goes to trial and is convicted. Once he hits general population at a Federal Prison... that's a different matter. In general population in the eyes of the law, you're just another convict.
3) The tinfoil brigade will attempt to claim the FBI planned the whole thing. That's saying that they were willing to break the law and attempt to get away with it. I'm sorry, but the FBI isn't that arrogant or that capable. Applying Occam's Razor, the more reasonable and plausible answer is that this opportunity fell in to their laps and they were smart enough to take advantage of the situation. Again history is full of things like this happening... its called being in the right place at the right time...
4) My guess is that Assange will probably get sued for the publications of stolen emails. There's more to this... But I don't want to get censored by El Reg.
On a side note...
Do you think Assange rushed to publication with the Stratfor emails as a way to deflect from his EAW appeal hearings? Or is it that he saw something that stated that the US was out to get him and he rushed to share this with the world? I don't know. Just saying...
"I'm a customer of Stratfor. I have a personal interest in knowing whether the FBI knowingly allowed Sabu et al. to commit a crime / propagate the emails. "
Somehow I doubt that.
Also if you were a customer of Stratfor, then you would best be directing your questions to Stratfor on how such a security company could be so open to being hacked.
There is no evidence of the FBI enticing the hackers to attack Stratfor.
That would be what is needed to defend the hackers by claiming entrapment.
Did the FBI change the data on the server after the fact?
Don't know. Doesn't matter. The key is that the FBI has to show that the crime was committed and that there was mens rea, or intent to commit the crime. I think based on what has been released to the public shows that.
The point is that the hackers committed the crime without FBI involvement until after the fact so they will go down.
How this ties back to Wikileaks remains to be seen. We will be the last to know.
Its yet another reason why Julian fears prosecution in the US.
@orsonX
When you wipe out the competition by providing a product or service at a loss because unlike the competition you can subsidize you product/service through the sales of another product/service, that anti-competitive nature is illegal. Just ask Microsoft who was labeled a monopoly....
So, Google is charging for their APIs?
Give away a product for free, using revenue from Advertising to pay for the costs of Google Maps.
The free product wipes out the competition because they can't afford to compete.
Now when there's no or little competition, they start to charge?
Hmmm. Can you smell the anti-trust lawyers starting to circle?
Clearly you don't know anything about US Law.
Yet again you missed my point.
Google = knowing breaks the law, Not just in one country but in several countries around the world. They blame it on a rouge coder, yet they actually file a patent on the same technology which is illegal.
Ooops! Mea Culpa, No charges, no penalties, no admission of guilt, and no recourse by the average citizen.
WB is trying to protect their copyrights and their intellectual property using the defective system known as the DCMA. They automate the system and there's a bug. It happens.
Did WB screw up? Sure. No argument there.
But the average citizen who was impacted by the take downs has recourse. They can challenge and sue for damages.
Do you see the difference? And that's the point I was trying to make.
BTW, its not a lie if at the time, while under oath, you believe that the statement you made was true and that you were not knowingly lying.
I'm sorry,
I think you missed my point.
Google goes out and breaks laws and gets away with it. Ooops a rouge programmer is to blame. Such a good excuse they did it several times until their latest gaff... well its Apple's fault for forcing us to break the law(s) so that we can serve custom ads and make more money.
WB... a bug in their take down scripts. ...
Well on the one hand WB is defending their copyrighted material. Bug in the system? Maybe. Playing fast and lose? Definitely. On the upside.... they can get sued if they are challenged over the take down request and they continue with their demands.
Google? You have no recourse. They own your arse.
And that's the point.
You can do it.
Imagine taking a home movie of your nephew running around in a Wolverine Halloween costume.
Cut and paste 90 mins of his adventures.
Then put it out there on You Tube.
I'd say as long as you can show that you were not intentionally trying to tweak their beaks... you'd have a good case.
But lets also be honest. They have a legal right to protect their copyrighted material right?
"Much of the legal battle is still sealed, but according to the brief, Warner has acknowledged that the notices were sent out incorrectly, saying they were mistakes churned out by the software while searching for content. The EFF brief points out that such practices are barred under the terms of the DMCA."
Hmmm. Warner Bros, has a program mishap, the EFF sues.
Google has a mishap, clearly breaks the laws in several countries. Gets a slap on the wrist and no lawsuits.
I'm just saying.
Then you miss the point.
The newspapers pay to generate content. They make their monies off of advertisements.
Its not just taking and posting links to the articles, but taking snippets. Where do you draw the line.
Also note the following:
"The ruling meant that users of a clippings service must have a licence from newspaper publishers to click on links taking them to newspaper website pages to avoid infringing the publishers' copyrights."
So what they are saying is that if you want to do it, you need to negotiate a license to do so.
TANSTAAFL!
Don't know why you're confused.
That's exactly the point.
Even with the pending lawsuit, Google is buying Moto. So when Google does their due dilligence any ongoing litigatagion is material to the merger and any documents discussed is pretty much fair game.
Good lawyer-ing on Apple's part.
Here's a better one.
Ignore 3D altogether and focus on 2HD.
Sorry but while I currently own a Sony 3D ready model, I don't own any of the 3D glasses nor do I ever intend on doing so. Yet I'm now considered a 3D consumer along w the interactive TV crap.
I know I can't be the only one who wants a TV that delivers the best picture possible., right?
It depends on the app and who the advertiser is. But essentially you are correct.
When an app generates money from ad revenue one of the revenue streams is the personal information that they app can pick up about you.
I have friends who say "who cares?" and go about their daily lives not caring about their privacy.
I and other friends are of the mind... "I like my privacy so get the fsck out of my life."
So we don't use these apps, etc ...
But here's the sad part. Because some of my friends don't care about their privacy, these companies are getting my personal information via my friends. Something they may have opt'd in to, but I didn't.
The US Government is on the take to the lobbyists from these companies. Go EU
Rush is a personality trying to be a Republican 'shock jock'.
Rush isn't a nice man but is trying to score points with the Conservative Right.
He is also a recovering drug addict. He was arrested and convicted over a drug offense because he was addicted to pain killers.
But here is his quote:
"So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.
Shows he is more of a perv than we thought.
WTF?
Please pay attention.
You have a regular sized car with a pod on the roof.
When the car is taking LIDAR measurements, they are also taking photographs. The instruments when extended are raised above the car. So at 6' your line of sight standing next to the car is at the roof line. The cameras when extended are going to be higher. Let's say 3' higher. Again I don't know because the cars are different in each country and the setups will vary. (I don't think all cars have LIDAR mounted on them. )
The car's cameras are high enough to peep over privacy walls.
Not to mention as another poster pointed out that Google posts the photos automatically w little human intervention.
Could they preprocess the photos to see if there are humans in the shot and then do a manual inspection? Yes, but that would take a large cluster of computers and cost $$$$.
(and yes I know the rough numbers ... ;-)
So Google could do more to respect the pivacy.
Note also that there have been lawsuits in other countries limiting the activities of Googles cars.
@AC
When you do business internationally, you need to know the laws of the countries involved. Here in the US, you could probably find web sites selling WW II Nazi paraphernalia. What do you think will happen if they tried to sell stuff to someone in Germany.
The truth is that when you deal with people in other countries, you need to know the law, regardless of the web.
The truth is that the US Government is upholding US laws. Bottom line.
Pretend that we're using my example above and the country in question is Germany. And the web site is in the US. If that company knowingly sold Nazi paraphernalia to a German citizen in Germany, how would you react if the German government took down the website and extradited the website owner to face charges in Germany?
Would you protest the German government? Or would you make fun of the owner of the American web site?
@AC.
Verisign controls the .com TLD and thus they are subject to US laws.
You have a website that you get to using a .com but the website and its servers are outside of the US.
That's fine. I believe that .net is also controlled by Verisign.
You want to get around this?
Sure. simple.
Register your domain w a .co.uk then redirect your .com domain there.
If you decide you want to break US laws, you lose the .com domain, but you still have your website intact up and running. Just make sure your visitors know to bookmark the .co.uk url too.
With respect to Bodogs. They knew they were breaking US Laws. The sad thing is that there are ways of getting around this that are legal on the part of Bodogs.
1) Don't deal with US banks. Bodogs is Canadian. They could deal with TD Bank among other Canadian banks. They can deal with banks in other countries too.
This puts the burden on the US gambler to getting a bank account with a bank outside of the US.
2) When a customer registers with Bodogs, Bodogs puts up in clear print that they don't want to break US laws and if the person is a US citizen they shouldn't register.
3) Use geo location on IP blocks to limit direct connectivity to the US. If the person gambling in the US wants to use Bodogs, they can go through an off shore redirect site. Again the onus is on the US person for breaking US laws.
There's more to it. The point is that Bodogs could have done things to limit their legal exposure.
That still wouldn't stop the US Government from taking the domain, however... it would have given Bodogs legal recourse to sue the US Government.
Titus,
Yup. This is why I don't play with poisonous snakes and when I confront one in the field I tend to use a shot gun at a distance. ;-)
But to your point about the secret indictment.
If one exists, then the US could exercise their options of getting an arrest warrant at any time.
The US is better off being patient.
1) The statute of limitations isn't over. So they have time.
2) Manning is currently being tried. (Court Martial).
3) Assange is facing his third and final deportation hearing to Sweden.
By waiting, Assange's claim of the trouble in Sweden is just a ruse to get him extradited to the US becomes paranoid nonsense. No indictment, or formal charges, there is no discussion w Sweden and its all in Assange's head.
Now the EAW gets granted.
Assange faces trial.
Regardless of any jail time. After Sweden, he's on a plane to Australia.
By this time, Manning's court martial will be over.
Then the US can decide what to do.
The Australian government could also decide to act as well.
and then there's the new threat.
Stratfor has the ability to now sue Assange personally and Wikileaks.
I think the laws in the UK are actually tougher than the ones in the US but IANAL...
Who knows what they will do because it opens them up to further scrutiny.
People have to understand that Sweden is protecting their own rights and personal freedoms. Nothing more, nothing less. Had it been you, you would have already been tried in Sweden by now.
@Justin.
Seems you don't remember the facts.
Lets see if we can clear up your misunderstanding.
It appears you're referencing the edited footage Assange posted under a very prejudicial title.
Remind me again the following...
1) What were the RoE (Rules of Engagement) for which the US military was operating under?
2) Did the US Chopper come under fire prior to the footage shown?
3) Where were the journalists? Weren't they embedded with the enemy forces that were armed and did fire upon US ground troops?
Kinda thing that makes you wonder if you understand what happened when you put things in to perspective.
When a reporter embeds themselves in to a dangerous situation, you should expect bad things to happen.
There's a recent report of a journalist who got killed during a mortar attack in Syria. Apparently she was trying to go back and get her shoes while they were shelling the building where they were staying.
Funny, I don't see you calling for protests at the Syrian Embassy or calling Syria murders.
Oh wait. Syria != USA.
Justin,
Kind of mashing a couple of things up.
But lets put things in perspective.
Ollie North got caught.
Watergate, Nixon got caught.
What about something more recent? CIA types getting caught in Italy?
Then contrast that against the assassination of the Russian from exposure to nuke material. (Rumor has it that it was KGB yet no one has been charged.)
Also look at the latest assassination of an Iranian Nuke Guy who was blown up by a bomb attached to his car by some people on a motorcycle as he was driving to work. Iran claims Mossad (Israel) did this. No one caught.
My point? We've lost our edge in covert ops that are outside the scope of military action.
Clearly. You know nothing of US Law.
Secret Grand Juries happen. It was already reported that there was a federal grand jury investigating Assange. No reports as to the outcome in the media. Nothing shocking there.
Manning's article 32 hearing released some information tying Assange to the theft, so Assange can't claim clean hands.
So yet again no shocker.
But if you Google for news on Assange you may come across reports in Israel where he offered to do an interview under some bizarre terms and when the reporter got the docs through legal means, Assanage tied to claim that they were his 'intellectual' property. Seems another newspaper heard that one claim too.
( This begs the question as to why Assange felt the docs were his in the first place...)
All of this is in the Press BTW...
But what is interesting is that Assange is probing Swedish journalists.
You can read the story here: http://www.thelocal.se/39374/20120228/
Keep defending Assange. But at least know the man you follow...
Sorry Fred it doesn't matter.
You read it. Great. But your best buddy Barney didn't and uses a Google system. So again, your personal information is being shared by Barney now becomes the property of Google.
So those pictures of you and Barney snorting a line of coke off that dead hooker's body in Rock Vegas is now the property of Google in perpetuity.
Huh?
So how is Apple creating a currency?
I think you're confusing the cost of an app through Apple's App Store and buying credits to be used for an online game.
Again IANAL and I don't use FB so I can't really say anything about the merits of the case, just comment that the case may hold some merit. If even enough to not get tossed, it will more than likely force FB to settle.
"I might be mistaken, but isn't it exactly how FB credits work? I also suspect that in casino-rich areas (Vegas, Monte Carlo, ...) you can actually use your chips off the floor, because everyone will recognise them for what they are worth, and know where to exchange them for real money.
"
Try it and see how far you get....
I don't do FB so I don't know how their credits work... Read my initial post. I was commenting that for the suit to hold merit that the credits would have to be accepted by non Facebook third parties.
It's an interesting argument.
Actually the answer is that it depends...
First suppose there's a company ... Wild Bob's Jerky Shop that has an external Website along with its own brick and mortar shop. They have presence on FB and accept FB credits. Suppose they honor FB credits on their external site too. Then what you have is FB creating its own currency. Then the case has merit.
Is this the case? Or is FB currency only good on FB? That's why its a tough call.
So ...
As to your argument... It falls flat. You have a casino. You exchange $5.00 USD for a chip. That chip is only good for that specific casino and if the casino changes the chips out, that old chip has no real value. So its a marker not currency. Nor could you use that chip as currency off the floor.
But I agree... lawyers fishing to see if they can get class action status for an easy win.( Read: Settlement)
Ok...
So I have to ask... what phone do you own? What apps do you actually have on the phone?
That's a serious question.
I have a friend who has an iPhone and has a ton of apps that are more game than functional.
On the other hand, I have an iPhone because I had to replace my old phone that was dying. I decided on the iPhone because my new company is Mac oriented and I wanted something that integrated nicely. His phone is a phone and a toy. Mine is a tool.
I don't care that much about the OS of the phone as long as it 1) doesn't suck my battery dry. 2) Works as a phone and offers some of the apps that I use on a regular basis.
Nokia owns Navteq so they do offer Maps and turn by turn directions. And their maps don't drive you in to the bog or off a cliff. ;-)
So yeah, I might consider this phone or another Nokia phone if the price is right, and it meets my needs. Unfortunately though, Nokia needs to fix some of this apps like Mail and contacts... but thats a different issue.
Sorry, but no.
History proves that you're full of it. Going back to WW II, when war crimes are committed, the truth gets out.
Notice that I'm not denying that war crimes occur. History shows this to be true in every combat action / War.
What I am saying is that Wikileaks has not uncovered anything remotely close to being a war crime.
Veteran reporters went through the leaked material and found nothing. If a war crime had been uncovered, they would have been all over it.
Manning screwed himself and for what? He got played by Assange.
I feel sorry for Manning. He is just one of the casualties from Assange feeding his ego among other things...
Oh and look at Assange's current news partners.... Very telling...
It goes beyond that...
"Google has argued that Microsoft's reliance on outdated technology had forced thousands of websites to circumvent the 'Platform for Privacy Preferences' (P3P) system it uses in IE in order to deliver "functionality" to web users."
What exactly does 'functionality' mean in that sentence ?
By using ambiguous terms, Google can admit to violating the law(s) of several countries and still claim innocence.
The irony is that Google has taken yet another play from Bill Gates' play book. It's profitable to lie until caught and only then pay the fine...
The guy has more than enough money that he can cash out, retire and then go in to business as an Angel investor or start his own tech fund.
Lets face it. Its possible that a small ($500K USD) investment in to the right company could generate a return of over a billion dollars. (Facebook).
So the portfolio diversification makes sense. After all, its hard to spend a billion dollars in a single life time....
Maybe I missed it, but the WSJ had an excellent article that was not only picked up by CNN but 3 congressmen wonder if Google's latest privacy gaff violates their earlier agreement with the US Government over privacy issues.
In case you have missed it, Google got caught circumventing Apple's Safari privacy settings. Snooping on Safari users regardless of their privacy settings. Big story, but somehow missing from El Reg.
How is that possible?
Sorry but this story is a waste of time when you have a better story that was never reported on. :-(
You ask: "Or maybe I just don't get why most people need non-relational databases? Is it really that hard to design data structures well?"
The answer is maybe.
There are some things that do not fit well in to the RDBMs world.
Try modelling a Off Balance Sheet portfolio of derivatives. It doesn't work well since they are all just contracts where terms can be different based on the type of derivative.
For those who think that RDBMs will go away... not likely. They still do certain things very well.
""All Google literally has is an email address that they provision to us," he said, adding that the firm needed to know these addresses so it could allocate storage to each address."
So what they are saying is that Google has to access storage which of course gives them access to mine your e-mail for other e-mail addresses and information about you.
Essentially Google and other companies like Facebook laugh at the idea of privacy and anonymity when surfing the web.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
