* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Assange bailed again

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Huh?

You're implying that there is a conspiracy when in reality there is none.

Look quite simply put, Assange is a sociopath. He probably associates himself with the main character of 'Crime and Punishment'. Assange also has a lot of baggage due to his childhood and had mommy and daddy issues. (Note: If you read any of the research on Assange you'd find out that he moved around alot due to his mother's fear of his biological father 'stalking' her/them.)

This experience along with his mother's background in theatrics had probably shaped his psyche. There's definitely more to this and I don't want to rehash his biography. The point is that Assange's personality is the type where he could be involved in both the mess in Sweden and the US.

So its not coincidence that he faces charges in Sweden and possible charges in connection with the US. (IMHO I believe he did cross the line and did break the law.) But there is no conspiracy.

Feds subpoena Twitter for info on WikiLeaks backer

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Graham Marsden: Really?

Wow!

Such strong deductive reasoning.

To say that the US government is hypocritical when someone illegally stole and published classified documents while legally following a course of an investigation is quite a stretch of your imagination.

I wonder if you truly know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

@Klaus

So sorry,

I misspoke when I said Sweden since Iceland is a Scandinavian country and should be recognized as such.

But Iceland isn't Finland, so I don't know why a Finn would be in Iceland's government?

So, am I bad for saying Sweden, or are you worse for saying Finn instead of Iceland when you tried to correct me.

Lets face it... all of Scandinavia would fit in a small portion of the US. (Wisconsin maybe?)

As to your point. The last time I checked. Espionage against the US would be considered hurting the US and that is a crime... So yes hurting the US could be a criminal act.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@AC

While Ian Michael Gumby is clearly not my name, it is also true that its not anon. That is there is only one Gumby who posts here. When you post as anon, you can be anyone...

That's the point. I'm not afraid to associate my posts with my alias.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Huh?

"She is surprised that the US Government doesn't respect her status as an MP of the Icelandic Parliament. Of course they don't! Doesn't she realise US law applies to the whole planet! The US Government probably doesn't even know Iceland exists."

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or intentionally dull.

The first part of your post is factually correct.

However this part is pure hogwash.

Anyone can create a Twitter account, even pretending to be someone else. So unless the US Government subpoenas the account holder's information, how do they know who 'owns' the account, and where they are located?

So this has nothing to do with the US not respecting other countries sovereignty but following US laws within the US as they conduct an investigation in to a crime against the US.

I am surprised that she outed herself.

I don't think that she realizes just what sort of position she has placed herself within Sweden, or maybe she does and just doesn't care?

Note: I'm not Swedish or know Swedish laws. Even if her involvement with Assange doesn't violate any laws, ethics are another matter. Embarassment of Sweden? Definitely.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

You really don't get it.

Suppose you created a Twitter account claiming that you were the queen of England?

How would the US Government know that you were or were not the queen? (A queen maybe, but not the Queen of England...)

Hence the subpoena.

As to LE subs yes they are usually kept secret and it was a decision of Twitter's counsel to challenge the need to keep this secret. (Perhaps they did their own investigation, found out who owned the account and then decided that it was in their (Twitters) best interest to ask that the account's owner be notified?) ;-)

[Note: This is usually the case. Were it you pretending to be the Queen, they probably wouldn't have gone through this hassle.]

As such, the silly git in Sweden has no expectations of privilege. All she is doing is embarrassing her government and her constituents.

Ian Michael Gumby
Headmaster

@M.A besides your spelling and Grammar?

It is a crime to steal and then publish classified documents. This is true in every country in the world.

Did Manning steal the documents? He's currently behind bars in solitary confinement in the brig.

(Military justice is pretty harsh.) Is he guilty? Until he has his day in court, he is considered innocent, however for the sake of this argument, he's guilty.

Did Manning act alone?

Until Manning's trial, we won't hear either side of it. For now, only Manning and his conspirators know for sure.

So the burden is on the US Government to investigate what happened and who was involved.

What we, the 'public', know is that a crime was committed and that the US is investigating. We also know that Wikileaks and specifically Assange is involved. We also know that Assange was previously convicted of hacking the US Government's computers, and we know what Assange and others have left in the public eye.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. Assange isn't the hero you pretend he is.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Just to clarify...

Since many here don't really grok the law... (Manning didn't until it was too late..)

Remarks made in public by Jonsdottir are not protected by her political title. They are public.

So it is well within the US Government's purview to subpoena information from Twitter. Twitter is a US company and thus bound by the laws of the US. (Read the ToS...)

Diplomatic Immunity would protect Jonsdottir from criminal charges within the US, however, it would be reasonable for the US to ban her entrance to the US at any future date if they so choose.

Jonsdottir could actually be in trouble in Sweden based on the following quoted remarks:

“He certainly had fun at the party,” Jónsdóttir was quoted as saying. “I said it would be a bit of a prank to take him and see if they knew who he was. I don't think they had any idea.”

-=-

Clearly the US Government is building its case against Assange. There is no need for fabrication of evidence and any claim is merely a smoke screen to deflect damage from Assange.

Jonsdottir admittedly knew and aided Assange in his quest to attempt to hurt the US. This goes back to his youthful hacking days where he was convicted of hacking the US's computers. The point is that Jonsdottir was by her own admissions complicit w Assange. That is to say that her 'folly' of taking Assange to a US Ambassador's function has real repercussions.

It doesn't have to be the US Government, but depending on the outcome of the investigation, the Swedish Government can take action against her. Diplomatic immunity would protect her from charges in the US, but not Sweden.

It doesn't take a genius to see what the US is doing and while we don't have the exact details of what they find, eventually that too will come to light. Yes, Virginia, there is a Wolf and his name is Assange. The US is very transparent...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

So...

Wikileaks dumps 1000s of confidential (classified) documents on the world claiming a need for better transparency.

Yet when the US government is in the midst of a criminal investigation, those same people who championed Wikileaks' action are now condemning the US government's legal request for information?

And note that since one is a member of Parliament of Iceland, she believes that she should not be held to the same level of scrutiny and transparency that she demands of the US?

Total fail on the part of Wikileaks and their supporters.

Posted non-anon because I believe in what I say.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@Oninoshiko

Twitter is a US corporation. They must comply with a law enforcement subpoena. Depending on the subpoena, Twitter may or may not disclose that they are subpoenaed. The purpose of the disclosure is to give the individual notification and the ability to challenge the subpoena in court prior to any material being released by Twitter.

I don't think you understand what is meant by diplomatic immunity.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Sean Baggaley

So what is the involvement by Assange and Wikileaks?

That was a rhetorical question. Only Assange and Wikileaks insiders can answer that. Was Wikileaks merely a conduit or did Assange play part in Manning's act?

So the US Government is investigating what happened.

The fact that this member of Swedish Parliament helped Assange to 'sneak' in to a US Ambassador's function, puts herself in to an interesting situation.

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@Greemble

The US Government is actually acting in accordance to US law. That is, everything they are doing is by the book.

They may know the answer, but as a matter of law they have to document what they know and as you put it... verification of what they know or suspect.

There's also more too it...

Assange 'threatened to sue' Grauniad over leak of WikiLeak

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@thecakeis(not)alie

I don't think we disagree on whistle blowing...

But Wikileaks isn't about whistle blowing but Assange and his personality. He's a twisted bloke who has a stiffy for embarrassing the US.

What I think we do disagree on is that I believe that there are some things we the public shouldn't know. The world isn't a clean and friendly place. Sometimes governments have to do bad things to protect us. Even vetted information that is released out of context can be misinterpreted and dangerous. Thats why certain information is classified (Top Secret) and not released. Other information is released well after the fact. (This has been a long standing practice since the dawn of civilization.)

But with respect to Assange, yes there were a lot of El Reg's readers who didn't see through him.

I and others were down voted because we saw him for what he was and thought his actions irresponsible and dangerous. In fact criminal.

Many El Reg posters are in fact far left on the spectrum and makes a centralist like me look like a right wing nutter. So yeah. They were duped by a sociopath.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

Graham, got a question for you.

Suppose there exists a cable from some mid level government flunky in the foreign service saying that he was talking with his Brit counterpart.

Your name Graham Marsden came up. The Brit flunky said to his counterpart "What a silly git he is."...

Note: I don't know why your name came up and clearly you're not someone of national importance, right?

Of course the US Government flunky does his due diligence and sends it off back to his superiors. After all they want to know everything he and his counterpart talk about. (Being paranoid, if they don't hear anything, they will get nervous and think state sekrets are being shared....)

Now that comment which describes you is leaked via Wikileaks. They publish it.

Clearly there is no need or care by anyone in the free world to know that some Brit government flunky thinks you're a silly git.

So how do you feel about this leak?

The only one making money from it is Wikileaks because the more docs they dump, the more people who spend time sifting through the leaks on their site, means more eyes on their site and more ad revenue generated.

So only Assange makes money because someone reported someone else saying that they thought in their opinion you were a silly git.

So I guess you feel that its justifiable and right that the rest of the free world should know that people think you're a silly git.

Moi? Now while I do think you're a bit of a windmill charger, I believe that the free world doesn't need to know that some flunky thinks you're a silly git. I personally think that there are some things said and done by the government we don't need to know.

So tell me how do you really feel?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Payton

You can bet that Manning is the leak. Hint: He may have access to material, but being classified documents, access is also logged.

But that aside, you can bet your bottom dollar that the prosecution is going to make sure Manning knows what is happening and trying to convince him that he was duped and should out his fellow conspirators like Assange. That is, have Manning take a plea deal and to roll on Assange and talk about how much involvement Assange played....

Ian Michael Gumby

Extra Starch?

Seems that the veneer of Assange is starting to crumble?

Apple patents 'net-booted' OS contraption

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Prior art and what is patentable...

That's the crux of it. What constitutes as prior art and what is patentable is always debatable.

Bootp and booting devices from a server over the network has been around for a long time. So if Apple has a proprietary way that is unique and not obvious from what already exists, then it could be patentable. If it would be an obvious extension of prior art, then no.

Kindle lets users lend e-books to mates via email

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Go to the library to borrow an e-book?

Hmmm.

Ok... so I go to the library to sign out an e-book.

How does the library send me an e-book to my reader?

Kindle? iPad? The easiest way would be to e-mail the book to the device.

Unless these devices have a standard USB data connection, the proposed solution doesn't make sense. Not to mention that its more convenient to borrow a book while I'm at home because I work during the day and the library is closed when I'm free.

Storage experts: Does size matter?

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

Huh?

I'm sorry but I fail to see the point of this article. (Hence the flame for El Reg. Sorry El Reg.)

3.5" vs 2.5" form factor? Hmmm let me think...

The benefit of a 3.5" disk is density per drive. That is that I can get a cheap 2 TB drive (3TB drives are popping up.) So for systems where I'm limited by the number of drives per box, and I don't care about the number of spindles ... 3.5" SATA drives make sense. (Read: More $$$ per TB when you buy 2.5" drives.)

Then the author points out... SSDs are the fastest thing out there. Funny how they fit them in to 2.5" drive devices. But then the author points out the obvious. SSDs are *expensive* and on a large scale, they are cost prohibitive.

No Duh.

So what's a drive array maker to do? Hmmm. Combine 2.5" hard drives, and 2.5" SSDs in the same chassis? Wow! Simply Brilliant. Definitely worth writing an article on... Take two devices that have the same form factor and put them in the same drive array so we can offer limited fast storage for the hot stuff and cheaper (slower) access for the rest of the kit.

For database stuff, its RAID 10 not RAID 5 so if a drive fails, you pop one out, and put a new one in. Its not as 'costly' to repair a raid 10 disk failure as it is to repair raid 5. ;-)

So I have to ask... how much was the El Reg reporter paid to write a fluff piece on storage arrays? Not from El Reg, but Hitachi?

Sorry El Reg, boring and bad writing.

But what do I know? Its not like I support Database systems that use large arrays. Or clusters of 'commodity' hardware in Hadoop/Hbase environments? Oh wait I do....

Micron revs flashy SSD line

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

You misinterpreted the quote...

They are saying that the 512GB drive can handle up to 72TB of write cycles. That is if you were to write 40GB a day on to the 512MB drive, you can reasonably expect the drive to last 5 years before you have a drive failure.

Yes, you're point is valid. However the point that the author is making and what Micron is saying is that these drives will last just as long as regular hard drives will last based on a realistic 40GB of writes per day.

The use case is within a disk array for database work. That is to say that most companies aren't writing 40GB of data per 512GB drive.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you put the use case of the drive and the statement in context, they are trying to say that you can use these drives in a commercial grade application.

A 2.5" 512GB SSD is probably a bit less costly that a PCIe card with 512GB of SLC. (Yeah SLC and MLC isn't an apples to apples comparison, but the idea of 512GB of Solid State Storage is the point. PCIe is very expensive.) For many applications where you want SSD, you don't need the performance of PCIe cards. So Micro does offer a better value.

US woman sues again over XP 'downgrade', seeks class action

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

You're correct...

Look at it this way...

Microsoft offers their OS as version X, flavor A, B, C.

So you buy a machine and you get version 7 A installed.

You want to downgrade to version 6C.

So you're told that you have to upgrade version 7A to 7C before you can downgrade to 6C. And there's an additional charge in downgrading. (Cost of media, etc ...)

That makes reasonable sense when you consider that the hardware vendor is going to ship you the machine with or without an OS for the same price because of the steep volume discounts Microsoft provides these OEMs. Its actually cheaper for the vendor to ship you with a machine that has an OS than to ship you a blank machine. (I'm going out on a limb and point out that there has to be some quality control efforts that take place, and doing an image copy of a known good OS version on a disk is a no brainer...)

People have to remember that Vista blows and Windows 7 can be a pig and take up lots of resources that didn't exist on older hardware. (1GB memory on a laptop? Seems small, but 4 years ago, it was a lot!) [And Windows 7 didn't really exist when the complaint/action occurred and no one wanted to be on Windows 7 first and feel the pain.]

So companies wanted the downgrade. Dell, Microcenter, HP, etc were offering machines with the downgrade bundled. This was done on kit that most businesses wanted to buy.

Groupon to raise $950m in massive funding round

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

The bid by Google wasn't for publicity.

Google wants in to this space. That is the 'local' relationship space. Google has been horrible on building relationships. One could consider their lack of acumen to be due to arrogance or bad manners.

Google failed against Netflix which AFAIK El Reg reported on this as well as the regular press like CNN (Money).

Groupon gives them 2 things. A patent which is a barrier to entry by competitors, and a built in customer base.

IMHO Groupon should have taken the 6 Billion deal from Google. They are not worth that much and Google would have lost a lot of face. Of course being the 'Chocolate Factory'... they can always print up whatever money they want. And one has to ask if Google could have swung the deal through the FTC and EU.

UN defends human right to WikiLeaked info

Ian Michael Gumby

Sorry but the US hasn't anexed Canada.

You post links to a radical right thinking Canadian and somehow attribute those remarks to the US and US Government.

As to your and other insistence that Assange can't be prosecuted for espionage, here's the definition:

Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage

But wait... here's another 'legal definition'

"Espionage Law & Legal Definition

Espionage is the crime of spying on the federal government and/or transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country. If the other country is an enemy, espionage may be treason, which involves aiding an enemy. The term applies particularly to the act of collecting military, industrial, and political data about one nation for the benefit of another. "

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/espionage/

"Espionage Act Law & Legal Definition

The Espionage Act is a federal legislature enacted in 1917. The Act criminalizes and punishes espionage, spying and related crimes. The Act prohibits not only spying but also various other activities, including certain kinds of expression. The Act pursuant to 18 USCS § 793, provides that a person will be punished with fine or imprisoned not more than ten years if s/he copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense. The Act deems any person a criminal if s/he is found obtaining information with respect to the national defense with a reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the U.S "

And here's another post.

http://thegazette.com/2010/12/12/assange-should-face-treason-charges/

(See Pat Smith's comment)

But back to the point...

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

"In this written roundtable discussion, a diverse group of three panelists:

• Predict that Assange will be indicted and that the indictment will survive a legal challenge.

• Disagree on the question of whether Assange is a journalist. But they agree that even if he is deemed a journalist, that may not save him.

• Describe the prosecution's greatest weaknesses, starting with getting Assange onto U.S. soil for a trial.

• Discuss what may be an overwhelming handicap for the defense if there is a trial: Assange's personality. His statements that he intends to harm the United States won't help him with the judge. And a jury probably won't like him, the panelists predict. "

-=-

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Armus Bollocks?

Really?

Suppose the US Government has some secret meetings with the Syrians and Lebanese governments in an effort to assist in Middle East peace talks. Suppose that the mere mention of these talks could cause the process to break down? [This is a hypothetical example BTW...]

Sometimes it takes a couple of generations before people are ready to learn some of the secret truths behind what happens. Having someone like Assange dump this type of information months after a peace negotiation is completed could have disastrous effects and definitely people would get hurt.

Looking at Assange's past performance and his hatred of the US, he would feel justified in making this information public.

Is this an example of the 'bad old days'? I don't think so.

How about this... What happens if/when the Israelis bomb Iran's nuke production site(s) and Assange leaks that the Saudi and other Arab states gave quiet permission to allow Israeli and US aircraft fly within their air space? (Again this is a hypothetical example.)

Again, 'bad old days'? I don't think so.

Ian Michael Gumby

@thecakeis(not)alie

I don't know why the post showed up as an AC, I clearly don't post as an AC unless I have to protect my identity. (My nickname is unique enough that people know who I am.)

I think our positions are closer than you think. Unfortunately Assange isn't a whistle blower on anything that prevents companies or governments from doing harm. His release(s) some innocuous while others can be shown to harm not just US interests but real lives of real people. As I posted earlier, there's a couple of posters who've provided links to articles that show Assange for whom he really is.

Information taken out of context can be a really bad and dangerous thing.

There are a lot of differences between Zuckerberg and Assange. Zuckerberg doesn't believe he's beyond the law. Zuckerber doesn't follow Nietzsche... Zuckerberg also has ties to a real community. (He gave money back to the Newark NJ school district.) (Assange and Wikileaks raised money for Manning's defense. Yet this money hasn't reached Manning.)

Assange is the harm. A digital terrorist.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@thecakeis(not)alie

Do governments need to be more open about the information they gather,create, and disseminate?

It depends.

It depends on which government, what sort of information, and what risk does that information pose to its national security?

There are some things that at the time are not good for the common person to read. Especially when its taken out of context.

That is why there are things like the FOIA and an existing declassification process that allow classified information to become declassified.

To dump information that is regarded as classified and confidential with total disregard for the context or censoring of the information is in fact a dangerous act and can have unintended consequences.

Assange clearly doesn't care who he hurts as long as he can get his way. Assange was convicted of hacking US systems in the past and this prior bad act (yes there is a legal ramification and legal meaning to that phrase), this prior bad act indicates a pattern and an agenda on the part of Assange.

Those who praise Wikileaks seem to have selective filtering and fail to grasp the entire picture.

The UN's message is that it would be wrong to rewrite the declassification process, create new laws to limit free speech in light of Wikileak's actions.

Is Assange a follower of Nietzsche's principals and believes that he is an uber man? That the laws that govern us do not apply to him? If you read some of the links provided by other posters to articles and interviews of Assange, you will start to find flaws and cracks that would indicate he's delusional.

Should there be whistle blowers? Sure. You bet. We have a Whistle Blower law that allows the Whistle blower to be rewarded when they blow the whistle on a company's bad acts. But that's not Assange. Nor is he or Wikileaks a part of the press.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Clearly you don't get it.

Since you're not an American, you don't seem to understand how things in America work.

Yeah we got our bunch of Nutters on the right and to the left. But guess what. The US Government allows them to exist, to a point. That point is when those nutters start to do harm to others.

Its ok for the Religious right to meet in their Church and believe what they want. They can camp outside a Medical Clinic which may provide abortion services and protest the act. But when they harass and kill doctors, bomb clinics? That crosses the line.

Same thing for the left too. (Other groups too.)

We defend the right to your free speech, to a point. Not all speech is protected speech. (And this is a point that many seem to forget.)

There is no 'war' against WL. WL crossed the line and it will be dealt with in accordance to the law. Assange will be shown exactly who and what he is.

I would hope that those who defend WL without understanding the consequences to its actions will learn the dangers that WL represents. Assange is an anarchist. And an anarchist in a free society can be a very dangerous thing.

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Knowledge requires understanding...

An information dump without the proper context will allow for people to draw a wrong conclusion and their actions will do more harm than good.

Information without understanding is dangerous.

In a court of law, the courts do not recognize any source of information that occurs outside of the courts. This could be considered intentional ignorance. The benefit is that the courts judge the case based on its merits. That is, information presented in the courts and allows the courts to make an 'informed' decision based on the facts presented and only the facts presented. Thus one can argue that a structured 'ignorance' can allow for an objective view and an impartial judge. (This is why the penalties for intentionally withholding evidence are so high.)

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Graham Marsden: Really?

So when was Assange an elected official to any government? Or an ambassador representing a country to the UN?

The point is that Assange is not someone who has either the authority, experience, or ability to correctly disseminate information on the behalf of any government.

Suppose Assange leaked reports from the UK that showed that the UK government did something embarrassing? How long do you think Assange would be 'free' on bail within the UK? Commonwealth Citizen or not, he would be deported back to Australia ASAP.

Back in Australia? LOL... Assanage is a convict. He plead guilty to hacking the US. Why do you think Assange is trying to get citizenship in Sweden?

The UN reiterated their position on the need for making information public under a set program. Nothing Assange did remotely represents that. What the UN fears is that there would be a repeal or curtailing of FOIAs in Western countries.

And no, you're wrong. There are things done by governments in the name of their people that you or others have no need to know. At least not for 50 years or so.

Ian Michael Gumby

Just to reiterate a point...

Here's the first two paragraphs from an Article in The Chicago Tribune...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama-insular-presidency-20101225,0,5881054.story

Reporting from Washington —

In the West Wing it had become a pretty common sight: two national security aides with close ties to the president, Thomas Donilon and Denis McDonough, hurrying into the Oval Office to show him the latest piece of hot intelligence.

Some administration officials who watched the scene unfold worried that James L. Jones, the national security advisor at the time, was being left out of the loop and that Obama was being given raw reports before their meaning and import were clear.

-=-

And this kind of prove the point that one should be concerned when information is provided without providing the proper context.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

Ahem... Reading is Fundemental...

Here's the first quote from the UN...

"The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions,"

This is a key point that many of the Wikileaks followers don't quite understand its ramifications.

What the speaker is talking about is that there should be a FOIA in place. I don't believe that the UN is defending wikileaks or even approving of an arbitrary 3rd party disseminates information at their own pleasure.

What the UN doesn't want is for countries to clamp down and restrict their information in light of Wikileaks.

Vulture falls asleep in front of Christmas TV

Ian Michael Gumby
Joke

Boxing Day?

Sorry, I'm just an ignorant Yank.

Is that a day that celebrates Tyson, Foreman, Ali and Fraiser?

Is this a Brit made up holiday to compete with Festivus?

IBM races bits along a nanowire track

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Cool...

I'd say that Moore's law still holds true, but this is a leap in memory/storage and not CPU horsepower.

But this along with the HP memresistor and other techs are driving for denser and less fragile storage.

(fragile? Drop a hard drive from 8 feet on to a concrete floor and see how well it survives.)

Now if only they can keep the price of manufacturing down. 4-10 TB of a solid state 'disk'?

Nice!

By the time this hits the market, you can imagine a Mac book air w better CPUs, graphics, an OLED screen and a 1TB 'drive' all within a titanium/carbon fiber shell.

Double-clicking patent takes on world

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Software and Business patents Bad idea...

Look, this has been hashed and rehashed and the only one who wins are the lawyers.

Here's the problem...

Some git of a judge decided that business and software patents should be allowed. So any concept that exists in the real world but hadn't been patented in the 'virtual world' was fair game.

So now everyone one and his brother who thinks they came up with a genius idea will now attempt to get a patent. They flood the patent office with garbage and sometime the 'legalese' description is so poorly written, I seriously doubt that the USPTO knows what the patent is supposed to be doing.

Add to this that they have to research the world and try to discover prior Art, or rely on some generous third party to help find the existence of 'prior art', and you have a system where dumb shit ideas can be patented.

Now here's the real kicker. If the patent is granted, and the patent holder sues another company, the burden of proof is to show that the other company didn't violate the patent. Its not a place to overturn a bad patent. So either way, the guy getting sued has to shell out major bucks to defend itself from garbage.

The easy fix is to nullify any software or business patent unless the patent holder can show that it wasn't obvious at the time and that there wasn't an existing 'real world' analogy in practice. Like 1 click shopping. (Gee... ever walk in to a small town's hardware store where everyone has a store account and all the clerk has to do is write up the order, the person signs and walks out with the stuff? ) [You can go and watch 'little house on the prarie re-runs and you have your 'prior art']

But that fix will never happen because big corporations, lawyers, etc don't want it to happen.

Think of Groupon losing one of their barriers to entry so that they don't have as many competitors willing to risk a lawsuit....

Microsoft answers Google MapReduce with 'Dryad' beta

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Actually this makes sense.

Full disclosure: I'm not a Microsoft Fanboi but I am an experienced Hadoop developer.

Ok, I'm never going to use Microsoft's tool or probably ever work on this at any of my clients site(s). But that doesn't mean that this is a bad idea for Microsoft. Actually its a no brainer if you think about it.

There are a lot of companies that have committed to the Microsoft view of the world. .net, C# and visual studios. Add to this Microsoft has SQLServer as their database... So Microsoft centric companies don't have a 'Big Table' option. Sure you can run Hadoop on Windows, but it doesn't really tie in to their environment.

So Microsoft creates their answer and all are happy. Don't be surprised if there aren't any 'crossover' opportunities.

And yes, its the first time I"m actually giving Microsoft a 'thumbs up'. Looks like Hell Michigan just froze over. :-)

World+Dog says 'no thanks' to 3D TV

Ian Michael Gumby

I'd buy one but not for the reasons you'd think.

Ok, so my first gen Plasma flat panel is starting to go. I'm trying to wait it out until OLED TVs hit the market. But that doesn't look like it will happen. So I'm looking at TVs. I want fast refresh rates. High end features.

My sister just bought one of the new 3D Sony models. She showed off the 3D blue ray 'Alice' and 3D of 2D content. Sorry, I wasn't impressed and I seriously doubt I could watch a 3D movie for more than 30 minutes before I get a headache. Outside of the 3D, the picture was really, really nice. The built in internet feature was also nice, but I don't know if I'll use it.

So like others, I'm going to pass on the 3D. But I have a problem. I'll end up buying a 3D 'ready' set because of the faster refresh rate, better contrast, and a nice picture. (Plasma, or LCD)

So I guess I'll be counted as one of the 3D sets sold, but I'll probably never use it except to show it off to people who might want it.

3D porn? Sounds too dangerous to me. You might put someone's eye out.

Google 'open' nonsense brainwashes US gov

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

You forgot one...

Google is facing a lawsuit from Oracle over Android's jvm. (Lets not get in to a debate over it.)

Yes, Google is clearly pressing their advantage since their former Lobbyist PR flack is now in the White House on Obama's payroll. He's the same guy outed when Google's Buzz revealed that he was having 'out of channel' communication with his buds at Google.

Assange lawyers fume over leaked rape case docs

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Absolutely not...

The information 'leaked' was the actual accusation by the women and none of the investigation in to the allegations.

What the story did was refute accusations by Assange and his lawyers.

It also showed that there was no 'honey pot'.

It publicly destroyed Assange's reputation by exposing his alleged crimes and the fact that he was spinning some tall tales.

The story doesn't taint the jury pool nor was anything that isn't already known published.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Mike S

I'm not sure that someone 'leaked' anything.

From reading the Guardian article, I saw a couple of things that stuck out...

1) Assange and his attorney claimed that this whole thing in Sweden was a smear job to discredit him.

2) Neither Assanage nor his attorney were privy to the information that the Swedes had against him.

The reporter investigated and found that the information he presented in his article was information that was available and to his knowledge known by the defense.

So it wasn't as if an anonymous source just leaked the information. Yet another myth that it appears to be presented by Assange's publicity defense.

The truth is less shady than that.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Down voted?

Wow.

Here's a post that shows that Assanage is a 'convict' and provides quotes, links and a bit of a view in to Assange's character.

Yet it gets down voted?

I guess some people just don't want to hear the truth. Even when presented with the truth I bet they'll argue that it was a conspiracy and he was 'set up' by the US Government for planting that information on his toy computer.

Ian Michael Gumby

You mean 'trying the case in the media'.

The media will always 'try a case'. That is the reporter and paper will gather whatever facts they can find and they will present their views and some of the facts. (If you don't think that news organizations are not biased then you live in a dream world. Just ask CNN or Fox if the other isn't biased when they report on a story... ;-)

But 'trying the case in the media' is where the defense team tries to bring credibility and do damage control by making statements to the press that may not be factual or they may present the facts but intentionally draw erroneous conclusions.

I'll give you an example of a single case where both happened.

In Cleveland Ohio, back in the 50's Dr. Sam Sheppard killed his wife. He claimed that a burglar killed his wife and attacked him. The hospital 'gossip' amongst the doctors was that the wounds looked superficial and self inflicted.

Because Dr.Sheppard came from a very influential and well respected family, the case against him was not initially pursued. It wasn't until after reporters for the Cleveland Plain Dealer continually made inquires and ran stories until the Police finally investigated Sheppard and made an arrest after his story started to fall apart. (This is an example of where Sheppard was tried in the press.)

He was found guilty and went to prison. 10 years later, a young F. Lee Bailey got Sheppard a new trial because of some comments made by the judge. Bailey 'tried his case in the media' in an effort to get Sheppard a new trial. When he was successful, in the 10 years, people died, and witnesses couldn't remember all of the facts. So Bailey got Sheppard released. My father was an attending at the time this happened and he believed that Sheppard was guilty. Most did, except for Sheppard's son. IMHO I believe Bailey had to try his case in the media in an effort to get Sheppard's initial trial overturned and get Sheppard a new trial. Without the press watching, I seriously doubt that the courts would have granted a new trial. (Sheppard was let go on a technicality).

So here you have a case that shows both examples of the Media trying the case and the case being tried in the media.

With respect to Assange, I believe that he wants his case tried in the media because he wants the attention.

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@Scorchio!!

Good find.

The interesting thing is that it explains a lot about Assange and his hatred of the US Govt. It also suggests that there may be more evidence against Assanage than just the act of 'publishing' stolen documents.

I think as the case against Manning continues, more evidence against Assange will come out. It also means that while 'Espionage' is just a political charge, there could be more charges that are not political in nature may happen.

The articles you linked to in other posts indicate that he was charged in being in possession of the passwords but not actually caught in the act of hacking. You're right that he could still face charges in the US, however, I think that enough time had passed that they couldn't charge him in the earlier crime. Of course that doesn't mean that they can't use it as evidence against him.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@bofh80

No. Not at all.

We're simply saying that its ironic that the one point behind Wikileaks is that all information should be made public (good bad or indifferent) yet when in practice, lawyers for Wikileaks are crying foul because their beliefs are now causing themselves harm. That's the irony.

I don't agree that all information should be made public. There are definitely a lot of things that should not be known or secrets that should not see the light of day. While governments have laws and rules regarding the de-classification of documents, having an unofficial third party with no oversight dump documents in to the public... with no context given... I do have an issue with that.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@K.Adams

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

First, Assange hasn't been arrested or officially charged has he? The arrest warrant is to bring him in for questioning right? (He did leave the country and wasn't in the country and missed an appointment, right? So much misinformation on these boards its hard to keep the time line straight.)

So to say that information was 'leaked' and because of the 'leak' he can't get a fair trial is ludicrous. As someone else posted, the leak could have come from outside of the Prosecutor's office... and the fact that someone also reported that the Guardian felt that it was ok to publish the data because it was already in the public eye.

And that's where the irony exists.

The amount of 'Harm' is objective. It would be difficult to directly tie the death of a person to the Wikileaks leaks, yet its probable that someone would think twice of coming forward if he or she felt that their identity would not be protected so that information which could have saved lives was never passed on. So there is some truth to Wikileaks claim of a lack of harm in releasing information that they feel that the public should know.

On the other hand, Assange's legal team is crying foul because while they have been out trying their case in the court of public opinion, where they can make assertions and allow some to make erroneous conclusions without recourse... Information that contradicts their 'publicity message' has been made public. So now there is 'Harm' that Assange may or may not get a fair trial. But that 'harm' too is subjective. Assange hasn't suffered any physical harm from the leak. Nor has his defense team produced any evidence in the court where the 'leaked' information has contradicted his statements and has caused harm. Keep in mind that what is said outside of the court room has no bearing on the court case unless it can be proven to taint the jury pool.

So exactly what 'harm' has occurred?

BTW, trying a bad case in the court of public opinion has been going on for a long time.

Drew Peterson in IL. OJ Simpson... interestingly enough F. Lee Bailey, one of his lawyers made his bones getting Dr. Sam Sheppard out of jail after 10 years for killing his wife. (But that's another story) In these cases you have someone who was probably guilty. (Peterson is still on trial, but OJ and Sheppard were guilty) Yet I digress.

So it is ironic that the lawyers for Assange claim that no harm came from leaking information, yet cry foul and harm when they are on the reverse side of the coin.

Assange can still get a fair trial in Sweden. So their claims of harm are exaggerated. (Of course all this does is silence the critics and fanbois who claim that it was all a government frame up.)

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

If its propaganda...

then why is Assnage's lawyer crying foul over 'leaked' documents?

Ian Michael Gumby

He Can't.

Wikileaks or Open Leaks make the leaks public. The Guardian has just the same rights to view them as anyone else.

So what if they don't get it first. They'll still get it before the majority of readers care and they don't have to spend a dime.

Senior Guardian hacks turn on Assange

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Now the truth starts to emerge...

"In June he contacted Assange in Brussels and suggested that professional reporters should comb the gigabytes of data WikiLeaks had obtained for stories.

The site's previous practice had been to dump raw material on its own website and hope it would be picked up by journalists. It was only moderately successful."

By this admission alone, taken at face value... Wikileaks isn't a newspaper, nor are their 'staff' reporters or journalists. So that any argument regarding Wikileaks as part of the press and should be afforded the protections of the press are misguided.

At the same time, it meant that Wikileaks didn't really censor or edit what they were dumping. Just tossing anything out there for the world to see.

But I digress... the point of the article is important.

It seems that Assange didn't quite understand that when you tell a reporter something you both know to be a bold face lie and to cry wolf, that the reporter will actually call you out on it.

Assange == Amateur

Nick Davies == Professional Journalist.

Big difference.

Car immobilisers easily circumvented by crafty carjackers

Ian Michael Gumby
Pint

So what?

Trade your 'posh' car in for a bike and a bus pass.

Or live in the city and get a 'city' car that has the requisite number of bumps and dings as not to win a beauty prize, yet can be driven in all sorts of weather. (Oh that's right. It usually doesn't snow in the UK like it does in the Midwest of the US. ;-)

Missile defence FAIL: US 'kill vehicle' space weapon flunks test

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Ok...

Putting aside that the only good thing about ABM tech is that it got the US and the Russians to the peace table and reduced the then threat of a 'nuclear doomsday'...

You have to admit that its really a cool application of technology.

I guess its a lot easier on trying to hit a controlled inbound missile than it is to try and crash a space craft in to an asteroid/comet moving at interstellar speeds...

Assange: Text messages show rape allegations were 'set up'

Ian Michael Gumby

@Neal5

"If I may, you appear to lack any idea of social pressure or come to that peer pressure."

Ah.

Now we're getting to the point that I've been down voted so many times in this specific forum that I should succumb to peer pressure and STFU because I along with a few others raise some facts that make it hard to swallow Assnage's actions and his subsequent guilt?

Its funny that I'm getting painted as some right wing nutjob when in fact this is not the case. I applaud Anonymous and their fight against the CoS, except when they break the law(s).

I don't suppose you see the irony in your post. You defend a man who claims to be 'fighting the establishment'. You and others claim that I'm a 'shill' for the 'establishment'. Yet those who follow Assnage do so based on a blind faith of his innocence and that his release of the documents hasn't caused anyone harm. (Or at least his lawyer makes a self serving statement to that effect.)

So I ask you... who's the real lemming here?