Recent Comments

I wonder how magneto-optical media compare to 8" floppies.

Sony used-to warranty the data retention of their write-once M.O. media (for 25-years IIRC), and would pay for data recovery if they failed.

These days they say their MO discs are tested to last 50+ years:

http://www.sony.net/Products/Media/DataMedia/products/ProDiscDATA/index.html

They also claim 10,000 write/erase cycles and 1million reads for their rewritable MO discs, but don't expect 50-year storage for those.

Sounds good, I know, until you check on the pricing...

Sounds good, I know, until you check on the pricing...

But I am not military. I doubt that they are fazed by this prices. Furthermore, when no new 8" floppies are produced anymore and I still had a good stash, if they wanted to buy them from me, I doubt the would be much cheaper than the Sony MOs ;-)

You should at least have said CDs/DVDs or other similar data-only media.

I did not do this on purpose. I 100% agree with all you said about thumb drives. The point was just that to isolate a system the external storage type is not really relevant. For me an isolated system is a system, which is not connected to any network. Ok, perhaps to a well defined local network with no connection outside this local network. The horrible security of thumb drives is a different problem. And... I would not even raise a brow when they just have said that thumb drives are an absolute no-no, on the contrary.

I was looking for the capacity of punch tapes, but only found 'a few dozen kilobytes'. The first 8" floppies also had only a 'few dozen kilobytes. But more interestingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape#Current_use

Use of punched tape today is very rare and is used only in military systems.

Unfortunately "citation needed"... but it looks like I wasn't that far off with my 'punch tape joke' :-D

Critical systems can also be completely isolated when thumb dives are used.

You should at least have said CDs/DVDs or other similar data-only media. Thumb drives are HORRIBLE for security. The protocol is extremely complex, perfect for innumerable types of exploitation.

A thumb drive could easily be an input device, keylogger, etc., instead of a dumb storage device:

http://www.thice.nl/hide-your-data-in-plain-sight-usb-hardware-hiding/

http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/programmable-hid-usb-keystroke-dongle

It could cause electrical damage to connected systems:

http://kukuruku.co/hub/diy/usb-killer

It can have bad firmware that causes subtle corruption:

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/code-published-for-unfixable-usb-attack/

etc.

Punch tapes should in theory have an unlimited capacity.

I don't want any life-critical systems to depend on proper and careful handling a fiddly roll of paper tape. Floppies are incredibly convenient and extremely durable by comparison to paper tape. And what about very high-humidity?

Do you really think that 1982 someone was able to anticipate Stuxnet?

No, it was a happy accident that not upgrading provided some benefits, but it is a benefit just the same.

Perhaps. I never had any of those systems long enough to do such a comparison myself. But all magnetic media deteriorate in time. So I guessthat even 8" disks have to be refreshed from time to time.

I wonder how magneto-optical media compare to 8" floppies.

The 5 1/4" disks came out 1978. They were more stable and convenient than the 8" disk. 1982 the even more stable 3-1/2" disk was introduced.

For certain values of "stable". In my experience, each step smaller increased errors and reduced reliability. 8" disks recorded in 1986 remain readable, while 3.5" disks from 2000 have deteriorated to unreadability, just sitting in the box. More convenient (mostly because you don't need as many disks), yes, but it's a high price to pay for convenience.

I assume they're talking about sneakernet, in general, being more secure than any kind of live data connection. The critical system can be completely isolated.

Critical systems can also be completely isolated when thumb dives are used.

Punch-cards may have too-little capacity to be practical

According to Google such an 8" floppy has a capacity of 80kb to 1024kb. Punch tapes should in theory have an unlimited capacity.

The disks also have a built-in protection against portable-storage attacks like Stuxnet,

Sounds convincing... at first glance. But it is not that they downgraded their modern technology with 8" floppies after Stuxnet. If this really was the reason to keep the old tech, for the first time people had a foresight, which I would call superhuman. The 5 1/4" disks came out 1978. They were more stable and convenient than the 8" disk. 1982 the even more stable 3-1/2" disk was introduced. What kept them from using those? Do you really think that 1982 someone was able to anticipate Stuxnet?

I assume they're talking about sneakernet, in general, being more secure than any kind of live data connection. The critical system can be completely isolated.

Punch-cards may have too-little capacity to be practical (otherwise, they could just write it out) and I know the card reader is much more elaborate and prone to mechanical failures than a floppy drive. EMP isnt likely a big concern, as they're already shielded and sheltered deep undeground.

And finally:

"The disks also have a built-in protection against portable-storage attacks like Stuxnet, which was introduced to Iran's Natanz nuclear plant via a thumb drive, since the disks don't have nearly enough space to hold such a sophisticated piece of malware."

The security of this outmoded technology was difficult to replicate with modern materials.

This I don't understand. In what way are floppy disks more reliable? Sure, everything is bigger on a 8-inch floppy disks. You probably can see individual bits with a magnifying glass <---- slight exaggeration, I know. But does this really matter? A floppy contains data. In really mission-critical environments I certainly would not rely alone on what data I get from some hardware... regardless of new or old hardware. And exactly for this reason all kinds of techniques like checksums were invented to detect data corruptions.

My guess is that old floppy drives might be more resistant against EMPs. But then... perhaps someone should tell them about punch tapes. Even more secure. Can even be read manually in case of an emergency.

Don't show them this:

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/five-disk-floppy-raid-4mb-of-blistering-fast-storage/

The only reason my workplace doesn't use microdisks is because transferring 5 gigabytes of SD video on them would take bloody weeks.

Get your act together.

I already included two links which explain iMessage flaws in detail. Any reason why you didn't read them the first time around?

No they aren't. You seem confused. The flaws have nothing to do with user passwords and 2-factor authentication. That's a whole other area where Apple is (or at least was) horribly, absurdly insecure.

Such as...?

No, there are plenty of more secure options:

* http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6981-secure-messaging-apps-business.html

Are you really linking to an article that starts with Blackberry messenger?

http://lighthouseinsights.in/indian-government-can-now-monitor-blackberry-messenger-and-internet-service-email.html/

Well, they are trying to fix it -> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2015/02/17/how-to-secure-imessage-and-facetime/

No they aren't. You seem confused. The flaws have nothing to do with user passwords and 2-factor authentication. That's a whole other area where Apple is (or at least was) horribly, absurdly insecure.

It's not perfect, but at the moment I would say it beats the competition.

No, there are plenty of more secure options:

* http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6981-secure-messaging-apps-business.html

You can find Apple's security white paper here: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

I would advise you to read it and draw your own conclusions.

Well, they are trying to fix it -> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2015/02/17/how-to-secure-imessage-and-facetime/

It's not perfect, but at the moment I would say it beats the competition.

Interesting. We read the same texts and come to totally different conclusions.

Yes, might happen, could be, no guarantee... For me it means: We simply don't have enough data. Even your article states:

previous research suggests that planets the size of Kepler-452b have a good chanceof being rocky

and:

That's substantial opportunity for life to arise, should all the necessary ingredients and conditions for life exist on this planet."

Doesn't this also sounds like could be, no guarantee? IMHO yes. Under this circumstances calling it Earth's twin is the real life equivalent of click bait.

But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all.

It has lots of speculation, based on no available information, and several paradoxically-contradictory theories. That is no argument. Hence my youtube link.

"Astronomers aren't completely sure it's a terrestrial planet" is the worst that can be said. Stretching that to claim it's a "mini-Neptune" is baseless, and also misleading. It's only a slim "possibility that it is actually a small gas planet".

And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely.

"It is the first potentially rocky super-Earth planet discovered orbiting within the habitable zone of a star very similar to the Sun." Nasa's science chief John Grunsfeld called the new world "Earth 2.0" and the "closest so far" to our home. And even the io9 article you cited, calls it "Earth's Near Twin" right in the title...

Here's a list of just a few of the more straight-forward self-contradictions found in the article:

"Models of what might happen on this planet indicates that it could be on the verge of experiencing a runaway greenhouse gas effect like that on Venus." ... Jenkins did add, however, that there's no guarantee Kepler 542b has experienced, or will ever experience, a runaway greenhouse gas process.

a possible "water world", but that's assuming it even has water

a smaller mass core, between 0.5 and 1.5 times the mass of the Earth ... holds on to far less of the lighter gases, making it much more likely to develop an atmosphere suitable for life.* / exoplanets with masses two- to three-times that of Earth could give rise to "superhabitability" - a perfect storm of life-friendly factors that could make an exoplanet even more habitable than our own.

assuming that it is, in fact, habitable, it is possible that life has had significantly more time to evolve there

We're not even sure if it's rocky, let alone certain what its atmospheric and chemical composition is like.

* Not on-page, a linked-to io9 explanation of the theory.

Is there a way to verify the implementation of these claimed policies? If this was verifiable then Mr. Cook has nearly convinced me to purchase an iPhone.

Otherwise this is all a bunch of claims likely spoken to win unmerited business.

I would like the EU to avoid ending up like the US, where people aimlessly shout out every inane thought that entered their heads.

I think European countries beat the U.S. by several centuries.

I'd assume it's just "good for business"... Apple put-in encryption features AFTER the public outcry of the Snowden/NSA domestic spying revelations (Apple was well-aware, but there was no public outrage yet) and privacy-centric and/or non-US businesses were gaining customers at others expense.

Apple likes to loudly tout how iMessage is safe from spying & subpoenas, despite the fact that the key exchange is weak and easy to undermine:

* http://www.zdnet.com/article/hackers-heres-how-apples-imessage-surveillance-flaw-works-video/
* http://www.tomsguide.com/us/is-apple-imessage-secure%2Cnews-17741.html

I'm already offended by the seach [sic] results. Please remove "seach" and replace it with "search"!

Is he a sociopath or not? Is this just good for business, or does he genuinely feel this way?

To forbid Google to show certain search results is like ripping the table of contents from a book. Google does not make the content it just indexes it. And how far goes Google's obligation to remove search results? I create a website, which claims rightfully 'x stole y'. If this is the truth, no one can forbid me to put this on my page. But Google might get a court order to remove my page from all search results. Ok... Now I create a second, a third , a fourth page, which says the same. Who will hinder me as long as I break no law? Does Google have to hide them immediately or can it wait for further court orders? One for each site? Or must Google proof read every single page before it can make it available? Automatic text recognition? 'x stole y', 'y was stolen by x'.... There is more than one way to express a fact. Do we have to accept false positives? Each page is hidden, which contains 'x' and any variation of thievery?

Perhaps soon there will be a new business? People who help to avoid accidental delistings? "No, you cannot use those three words within your webpage... these three word are also in a page, which was delisted because of the right to be forgotten". This information cost you $2000. There are three more dangerous word combinations... Do you want to buy another advice?

I don't know, but honest censorship and good old book burning sounds like much less trouble to me and would feel far more ... erm.....yes... 'honest'.

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Not a great read? Perhaps. Not everybody is a good writer. But you make it sound as if it has no arguments at all. Actually most of the 'repetitions' in this article are quotations of several scientists of different fields. And practically all agree, that 'twin Earth' is not very likely. Maybe mini-Neptune, or huge-Venus. This does not necessarily rule out life, but probably even the Mars is more 'twin Earth' than this planet.

It's completely fine to disagree with something or campaign against something, as long as you are are able to articulate why you disagree with it.

I would like the EU to avoid ending up like the US, where people aimlessly shout out every inane thought that entered their heads.

Maybe because it's wrong and evil?

It's not that simple, there are clear laws in E.U. countries in order to determine if you qualify as a public figure.

Why do you think that in order to be 'forgotten', you need to have both the approval of a judge and also of the CNIL?

In other words, it's not as simple as people try to claim it is. Why do people who haven't actually read the law so opinionated about it?

A public figure? If what you do can be written about on a web page then you qualify as a public figure.

It's not a French law, it's an european one.

And no, Edward Snowden wouldn't qualify for it since he is a public figure.

from the ruling:

Par ailleurs, ce droit n'est pas absolu : il doit iªtre concilii© avec le droit i  l'information du public, notamment lorsque la personne concerni©e est une personne publique, sous le double contri´le de la CNIL et du juge.

which loosely translates to:

The right [to be forgotten] is not absolute: it must respect the right to inform, especially when the person [asking to be forgotten] is a public person. The decision must be made under control of the CNIL and a judge.

So, no, we likely cannot forget all about Nixon.

To be fair, the so-called "right to be forgotten" was decided by an European court, not a French one. The French regulator only claims to apply that decision. Here is the "ruling" from CNIL: http://www.cnil.fr/linstitution/actualite/article/article/droit-au-dereferencement-rejet-du-recours-gracieux-forme-par-google-a-lencontre-de-la-mis/

Go go duck duck go!

Oh, only in the EU. Then it is not a problem. Ok, the Germans, the Britons, the Italians, the Spanish... and many more have to forget, too, because a French court says so... But hey, their own fault that the live in Europe.

Regardless of what you think of Edward Snowden, what would happen if you applied for "the right to be forgotten"? Does that mean that no one in Europe would be able to search for information on him?

Stupid French laws.

It makes me wonder how closely other search engines are being monitored. Personally I stop using Google long ago.

Additionally I have mixed feelings about this anyway. Forgetting is part of time healing all wounds and helps people change their ways. However what "right to be forgotten" does someone like Richard Nixon (or his heirs now) have for everyone to forget his poor choices? It's infused in history and describes certain parts of society that endure.

What the court determined is not that Google needs to apply the 'right to be forgotten' globally, it is that Google needs to apply it to all domains (.fr/.com/.gl) to visitors within the EU.

Google's current implementation, removes the search results on searches on google.fr which is of course easy to bypass by simply changing the domain tld. Since a lot of netizens already use google.com by default instead of their local tld, it ends up being of useless.

Of course Google is aware of this, so they are not trying to be freedom fighters, they are just being in contempt of the courts.

If Google is really against the law, they can either actually challenge it (instead of implementing a lame attempt at trying to bypass the law) or withdraw from the EU market like they did in China at a time. Having that said money usually trumps 'do no evil' (or is it now 'do the right thing'?).

I'm not saying that I agree with France's regulator point of view, but Google's argument ought to be:

The Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place in which we operate

They stopped their operations in China for reasons if I remember correctly. But sure Google, feel free to operate in North Korea to make your point and see how that goes.

Depends on why you have bathroom doors in the first place. I've been in airports that eliminate the doors entirely, and just have a partition immediately inside the passageway, so nobody outside can see in. That seems like the best solution in general.

If you still want a door, it might be a small bathroom that needs to lock, or they're for blocking noise, odors, etc. In tight spaces they can be good barriers to keep high-traffic from incidentally pushing in. In any of those cases, automatic doors wouldn't work (and they'd be expensive additions). That is, unless the bathroom door goes directly outside, into the elements...

Since they are probably already installed at the front entrance, why not just put automatic sliding doors on the bathrooms?

Granted, you'll probably want either an opaque or frosted glass version. Also, an automatic door (times two for both genders) will surely be more expensive than a standard door.

Good point. They can still see where you are going and nail you from there. 120mb traffic from banginggrannies.com? Fired!

There's no more IPv4 addresses left to be pumped out of the ground. You may (or may not) be able to buy them from an organization that previously pumped a bunch out and doesn't happen to need them all, but there's no more new supply. Prices won't just rise, they'll dramatically spike, and it won't be long before that pool of last resort will be completely exhausted, too. There's too many people, too many devices. There big crunch is imminent.

This is a good question. I'd also want to know if the location - public toilets, private workplaces, hospitals and so forth - impacts the germ level. So many things to control for, such little time.

When I was doing a biology class at high school (about 1990) we had to take swabs from any surface to see what would grow. I chose my teeth, and got the sample back a week later.

The teenage genius next to me asked "Don't you brush your teeth? Hurr hurr! Dirty teeth! Dirty teeth!"

This guy went on to work for the (not-United States) government...

Ooh, I'd use that. I hate touching toilet doors because of the number of people who walk off after having a crap who don't wash their hands.

This has been know about for decades. Hell when I was in college in the early 90's one of my intro microbiology labs involved taking samples from the bathrooms, including sampling the air from the hand dryers. It's the reason I skip hand dryers to this day.

Couple of points:

• If you log in to your home account on work hardware or network, you get what you deserve. It's work's hardware/equipment. If they aren't cool, don't trust 'em.
• I can't think of anything that google provides that it doesn't provide over https or similar. Work isn't gonna know what appears on your monitor unless someone is watching over your shoulder. See point 1. Blow your caches and browse incognito if you're worried about someone scanning your cache, etc.

If you only log in to your Google account at home, and you're the only one who sees your computer monitor, then sure, they're just letting companies target you based on what people statistically like you have bought. For some, that may mean lots of ads for clothes, other lots of ads for adult services.

What if you log in to your Google account at work and at home. Your at-home purchases should not lead to targeted ads at work. Lots of people buy not-safe-for-work items; most wouldn't appreciate related ads being shown at work.

This is only "privacy-safe" if all the computers you use are 100% private, and even then, being lumped together with others based on how you use your computer is still a basic privacy breach. Unfortunately, in this day and age it's not only expected, but accepted.

Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling.

Makes me want to sing Happy Birthday outside Warner/Chappell's offices on the date of the original copyright. That wouldn't hit a nerve, would it? :D