Quote:
Originally Posted by Libby K
Good on 548 for coming forward, although the major discrepancies between their statement and FIRST's report still leaves questions for me.
Emphasis mine.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi
I am continuing to question the integrity of this one mentor's words.
|
I am a bit disappointed by this sentiment for two reasons. First,
a lot of the data in the Einstein Report is inconclusive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Einstein Report
Over the course of these tests, FRC Engineering was able to determine how to identify a failed client authentication through the log data recorded in the field access point. However, the configuration of the field access points used during the 2012 FRC competitions, including the matches on Einstein, is such that log data is not retained when the access point is powered off.
|
This statement, directly from the report, essentially states that the exact number of times the individual from 548 made his or her attack cannot be known, because the logs no longer exist. It is perfectly "plausible" that another individual repeated the same attack elsewhere in the dome, or some sort of other interference occurred.
Secondly, whether the individual made one attack or 100 attacks is a moot point. The individual's actions (regardless of intent) were malicious and he or she was punished accordingly. The job of the CD community is not to further scapegoat the individual for more attacks than he admitted to, as no proof exists. Instead, we should collectively be accepting of 548's generous apology (one they by no means had to provide) and we should all encourage FIRST to try and eliminate dead robots (due to control system failures) almost completely by 2014.