I thought those photos looked familiar
For a moment I wondered if the book had already been made into a movie. :)
127 posts • joined 4 Feb 2008
For a moment I wondered if the book had already been made into a movie. :)
We've had them here in our city in Canada for 4 years now.
- no energy savings
- utility plans 60% increase in electricity bills to pay down the debt they incurred (and hid with accounting tricks)
It's nice to see someone try to restrain the rush to implement a global police state. Certainly the Harper government here in Canada used the sad incident of violence by a single mentally-disturbed individual as an excuse to press its agenda of increased secret surveillance.
"a 3 per cent risk of an astronaut dying due to radiation exposure during a mission is seen as the acceptable limit"
Perhaps "a 3 per cent risk of an astronaut eventually dying due to radiation exposure received during a mission is seen as the acceptable limit" might be better.
I've used Yahoo's email, calendar, contacts, and groups for many years, both at home and at work, and I've always been pretty happy to have all that functionality for free. Yes, Google and Microsoft have improved their offerings in recent years, and like everyone else I'm forced to use Google for some things, but I stick with Yahoo as my go-to choice. If they started charging a fee for business services, I would pay it. I just wish they would quit fiddling with the interface design. They keep breaking things while they are re-arranging them to no apparent purpose.
I have a SanDisk SSD on the system I'm using, which I bought because of the great performance specs. Only to find a few months later that performance was deteriorating rapidly because of a firmware bug in the Sandforce controller. It turned out that every SSD manufacturer was aware of this bug and had agreed not to mention while awaiting a fix from Sandforce. When the bug was reported publicly, every SSD manufacturer other than SanDisk acknowledged the problem, apologized to customers, and released the fix as promptly as possible. SanDisk stonewalled customers, refusing to respond. Eventually they caved in and release a bug fix for their product, months after all the other manufacturers. I suspect that they would have quietly let it slide if the issue hadn't become public. Draw your own conclusions, but I'm avoiding SanDisk products in future.
I have both iOS and Android devices, and it's pretty clear that iOS is still the champ when it comes to usability and reliability. My latest phone uses Android 4.4.4, and I often have the urge to bash it against the wall until there's nothing left buy tiny bits! Not the phone's fault, it's all Android and Google to blame. It's much less reliable than my oldest tablet that uses Android 4.1.2,
Canada too. When I want to access many types of government business or personal service sites, I have a choice of signing in with my banking ID from certain approved private bank partners, or applying for a separate government web ID that takes several steps and several months to obtain (and no, it's not universal, various other government services require dozens of other unique IDs). I use the bank partner ID, but I'm not happy about it. The government leaks private information like a sieve if the history of the last few years is any indication.
I don't think anyone is surprised by this. You could choose any random group of software applications and find the same thing. We could hope that mobile banking apps would be better tested than most, but I think we all suspect that they aren't.
From my own perspective of decades of experience as a software developer, product manager, and software business owner, I know it's really about the money, but I'd also like to point the finger of blame at two technical issues:
1. The C language and its derivatives. Biggest mistake in the history of computers. Every time you hear about a buffer overflow error in software, realize that it's due to a fundamental design flaw in the C language that leads to the same error repeated over and over. If civil engineers had used building techniques as flawed as the C language, our civilization would lie in ruins today.
2. The preferred modern software development method of "code and test incrementally until it doesn't crash any more". Naturally produces poorly tested software riddled with bugs. Reminds me of the early history of constructing railroad bridges: no need for detailed analysis, if it falls down we'll double the strength and try again.
Yes, by all means let's have a vast chip-and-PIN experiment. Except that the rest of the world has been on chip-and-PIN for years. Next you'll be telling us about a radical experiment with a brand-new system of decimal measurements!
In any case, it's not so much about security as it is about liability. Concurrent with the switch to a chip-and-PIN card, you will get a nice little change of service agreement from your bank with lots of fine print which basically says that you are deemed 100% liable for any card transactions which they claim have used your PIN.
No more of those messy fraud investigations, the customer is responsible! Never mind those pesky cases where the customer claims that he was half a world away and has never shared his PIN with anyone. Never mind those cases where the it turns out that the bank lied when they claimed that the PIN was used. Minor incidents, nothing to get in the way of a great innovation in liabilityxxxxx I mean of course security.
If you want to know why the plods and the spooks are so obsessed with metadata, blame British company i2 (now owned by IBM) for producing the #1 tool used by intelligence analysts worldwide: http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/analysts-notebook
The broadcast network lawyers are astonished that Aereo would offer a defence that appears to contradict their initial contention that they aren't a cable company? What law school did they attend where they didn't learn about "argument in the alternative"? Even I've seen that routine legal strategy in small claims court, as in "it wasn't me driving that car that hit you, but if it was, then it wasn't my fault".
I turned one of my Gmail accounts into a Google+ account, and I see that Google actually is smart enough to tell you which of your Orkut friends already have Google+ accounts, and it lets you link up automatically.
I had a moment's pause though when the Google+ setup asked me to agree that "I understand the changes that this will make to my Picasa Web Albums". Those changes turn out to be that your web photo albums that you shared with specific friends will now be shared with everyone on Google+ unless you restrict them.
I have many friends in Brazil who I have stayed in touch with over the years using Orkut. Now I'll have to track them all down individually and get linked up to them on another service before September. I can see why Google can't simply transfer these links automatically - few people are going to have a Google+ account, and Google wouldn't have permission to set up Facebook links. But if they were smarter they could have provided some sort of automatic global notification, e.g., send out a message to all contacts saying "Your friend X is now on Google+, click here if you want to link up on Google+ [Create account]".
Another dumb idea brought to you by politicians who want to appear to be doing something.
Predictably it hasn't had any effect on spam, since almost all of the sources are outside of Canada have never heard of this legislation, and wouldn't care if they did. As noted in the article, most small businesses in Canada were unaware of it until recently, and have no idea how it would affect them.
The reason why everyone is aware of it now is that our mailboxes have been flooded with requests from legitimate businesses to confirm that we still want to receive important emails from them. In view of the confusing wording of the law, they all felt it was best to confirm compliance. As a result businesses across the country are spending millions of dollars going through a compliance process or just responding to all these requests. Another own goal by our politicians!
There was some doubt about the satellite data early on because Inmarsat wasn't releasing any details, and the aircraft flight path that it indicated was so unlikely that it was hard to believe without any corroborating information or any good theory of how it could have happened.
There is still no corroborating information, and still no good theory about what happened, but enough experts have gone over the satellite data in detail now to confirm that the flight path is almost certain to be approximately correct. It's not impossible to find other flight paths that could produce the same readings, but they are very unlikely. The problem is that there are enough unresolvable uncertainties in the calculation that the area of ocean to be covered is still huge.
We'll probably never know what happened until the wreckage is found - and even then it might still be difficult. Shattered debris from a high-speed crash into the ocean, scoured by currents for months or years, black boxes that would have recycled every 2 hours during the flight even if they can be found - they might not tell enough of the story. Unfortunately the best chance to figure out what went wrong would be if there's a similar initial incident on another 777.
He means floating debris. It took a long time to locate the actual wreckage of the Air France plane on the bottom of the Atlantic, but they found floating debris to confirm the crash area within days.
To understand this you need to know how the defence procurement game is played. Filing a protest and making Twitter comments is not done lightly, it's part of a carefully evaluated corporate strategy. Almost all major procurement contracts are ultimately decided by uncompetitive backroom deals that are years in the making, and a whole lot of people get paid off with favours to make it happen. It's understood that everybody eventually gets their turn at the next contract if not this one, as long as they avoid messy public protests. But once in a while things go a little too far, and it's time to make a big, messy protest. There is zero chance that the protest will be successful, and it's understood that the protesting company will be punished for it. But it's intended to give notice that the government side needs to rein things in and play fair in the future, or else their normally-tame bidder will blow them all up. For established companies it has to be done about once every 10 years, or they'll think the company is a pushover that can safely be ignored when they're doling out the procurements. For a new player like Space-X, they have to be more aggressive to muscle their way to the table.
It looks like those first 3 data points after 2am local time are from a single ping message where the velocity changed rapidly throughout the ping, giving them 3 separate readings. They think it's because the aircraft was turning. How long does a ping take?
If that's the case, the Malaysians are correct in saying that there were 6 pings, and everyone has been wrong in assuming the pings were hourly. The interval appears to be slightly longer on average and slightly random.
I don't see how that would work. Knowing the satellite wobble can only tell you about the motion of the satellite, not the motion of the aircraft.
Perhaps it's more to do with the fact that if the aircraft flies to the south it crosses over the equator, so initially it is pointing slightly more toward the satellite as it approaches the equator and then slightly more away after it crosses the equator. Whereas on the northern route it starts out north of the equator and continues north.
But looking at the geometry here, two things stand out:
There are several key assumptions required about what the aircraft actually did in order to correlate this analysis with a real world path. One can imagine other alternative aircraft paths that could fit the data equally well if it didn't actually fly north or south.
There are few data points, and the random motion of the aircraft in the air has got to be almost on par with the small velocity differences that InMarSat is trying to read. Where are the error bars on this chart? Where is the statistical analysis of likely this fit is?
Finally, some real information in the link from the article! Too bad it's still a pretty long chain from InMarSat through 2 other agencies to a Facebook page. I assume the Annex referred to is just the 3 diagrams?
But the chart raises several questions:
Why does the Malaysian release say that 6 pings were received after the aircraft disappeared, while the chart shows 7 (not counting the final partial ping)?
Why does the chart show measured data points that are clearly not hourly when all sources until now have said that the pings were on a regular hourly schedule at 11 minutes after the hour?
When you tab-cast anything from your Chrome browser, your PC is indeed doing the heavy lifting. It has to transcode the incoming video stream to a compatible format and re-transmit it to the Chromecast. The Google Cast extension in Chrome that does this is not very efficient, and the video stutters, quite badly on slower computers. The WiFi connection doesn't really enter into it.
When you cast from the BBC iPlayer app on Android, it instead hands over streaming to the Chromecast itself. You can shut down your Android device entirely if you wish after starting playback on the Chromecast. In this mode you will find that the BBC iPlayer video streams smoothly.
There are a lot of limitations to satellite surveillance that you wouldn't necessarily be aware of. The satellites follow a polar orbit that only brings them over a given point on the earth's surface every few days typically. There aren't ground stations everywhere to receive a real-time downlink, recorders are limited and unreliable, and orbital relay systems not available in most cases. There's a hard bandwidth limit that means you can have detail or broad coverage, but not both. There's a limited power budget which means the satellite may not be able to transmit all the time. That's especially true for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellites, and the Australian images are clearly SAR (probably Radarsat). Considerable post-processing is required for SAR, so you aren't going to get images right away - hence the delay of days on the Australian images.
The ACARS on MH370 only transmitted data every 30 minutes. Somebody misunderstood that initially and started the whole "suspiciously disabled before the last radio transmission" theory. Malaysian authorities later realized the mistake and retracted the whole thing, but the damage was done. It lingers in people's minds that there was something suspicious about how the onboard systems were turned off that confirms it was an intentional disappearance.
To be clear, the article we are writing is about the psychology of the investigation rather than the technical details, so we aren't attempting to decide which is the correct explanation based on the limited and often inaccurate information that has been published so far. However we obviously need to understand the technical evidence in order to understand how it has influenced the investigation.
I discount the military radar data because I am familiar with such radar data and I have a good idea what it does or doesn't show. For those who aren't personally familiar, I suggest you read the accounts of the incident where the U.S.S. Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner by mistake. Although equipped with a very advanced AEGIS phased array radar system, they identified the Airbus airliner as an F14 fighter and thought it was descending toward the ship when it was actually climbing to cruising altitude. It was only 9 miles away when they decided to fire missiles at it. Does that tell you enough about the ability of military radars to identify unknown targets under ideal conditions of close range and no terrain clutter?
I have no doubt that the InMarSat engineers are very competent and are working diligently to clarify and verify their data. I also note that InMarSat has said nothing much officially since their initial hasty comments to the press. Why would I doubt their abilities? Here's a couple of things to think about:
1. I doubt that InMarSat's satellite ping data is identified as "Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370". It probably has a transmitter number assigned to Malaysian Airlines, and they are relying on Malaysian Airlines to give them the correct number from their records. Of course the aircraft itself is no longer available to verify that they have the right number...
2. Do you remember when NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into Mars and was lost because an engineer confused metric and imperial units? Engineers make mistakes, even basic dumb mistakes. Maybe like not converting time zones correctly when analyzing data in a way they have never been asked to do before?
I'm not saying that it's definitely a mistake. Just that we don't know until it's verified very carefully, and it's a lot to hang a very expensive investigation on. You would want to be really, really sure.
The simplest explanation is that MH370 crashed into the sea near where it disappeared, and the rest of the shaky evidence and wild speculation is simply wrong (as much of it has already proven to be).
I'm working on an article to that effect with an associate who specializes in the psychology of investigators and the ways that investigations can go wrong (we don't expect the missing flight to be found before the article is published). This case is a classic, with all the signs. My associate doesn't know how to evaluate the technical details in the reporting, so I'm helping out as an engineer who knows a lot about air traffic control systems and satellite systems. While there is certainly some technical evidence of a flight diversion, I have to say that it has been very poorly reported, and I consider it at least as questionable as other evidence that has already proven false.
Most people don't seem to understand the need to evaluate individual bits of evidence independently in the early stages of an investigation to avoid "confirmation bias". One bit of questionable evidence leads to a theory, and suddenly everyone is trying to confirm that theory, adding more questionable evidence that isn't independent while ignoring other evidence that doesn't fit the theory.
There is certainly some evidence that the flight was diverted, and I wouldn't rule out that it might well prove to have been in the end. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far there are only two bits of evidence that amount to anything in my view:
1. The wreckage hasn't been found in the area of disappearance. In every previous case of an airliner crashing at sea, floating debris and bodies were found within days. There are possible explanations, but I still think it's a key point.
2. The supposed InMarSat data. The problem with this is that the news reports are extremely vague and often inaccurate. It may consist of a single data point, and having never looked for such data before, InMarSat officials probably have no idea how accurate or error-prone it may be. Any number of possible errors could render it meaningless, such as a mis-identification of the transmitter number, incorrect conversion of the time stamp, or incomplete data stuck in a buffer being flushed out hours later.
The military radar data is nonsense.
It's not much on which to base a lengthy and extremely expensive search effort when common sense suggests that the original search area is more likely to be correct. Since it's no longer an emergency, the investigators should sit back, clear their heads, and go over the evidence again with fresh eyes and more in-depth analysis.
I really wanted one of those early Psion pocket PCs, but I could never find one at a reasonable price in Canada. I almost bought one in Singapore, but I had already exceeded my duty-free allowance. :(
It may be no more than the continuation of the Open Connect peering initiative: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/04/netflix-introduces-its-own-cdn-open-connect-network/
CGI Federal have fulfilled their most important purpose - to take the blame for the screwup, leaving the government managers ultimately in charge of delivering healthcare.gov to hide in the shadows. I bet they all moved on to other posts up the chain before it hit the fan, and their replacements are able to say it's not their fault.
I've been involved in a number of these government-driven projects in my career, and the problem is usually a few wannabee system designers on the government side who produce unrealistic specifications and want the contractors to comply with them. The contractors are happy to do so if their price is met, even when they know that the government spec is unrealistic. Example: the UK side of the North Atlantic air traffic control system that fell over on its first day of operation because there were too many aircraft. The contractor pointed to the capacity spec they were given and the fact that it was exceeded, making them technically blameless. How could a huge development and implementation team not know how many aircraft to expect? They did of course, but the government side set the spec many years earlier, failing to allow for growth, and the contractor saw their job as delivering to that spec.
I learned to program in the olden days too (I hate to tell you how old!), and I like to delude myself that I can still bash out a decent program in any modern language faster than the development team of "kids" I have working for me these days. :)
The biggest change I've seen over the years is that developers today are totally dependent on interactive debugging to hack out a program by trial and error. They code and test incrementally until it does what it has to and doesn't crash any more, then they call it done and submit it for product integration. Of course their code then proceeds to fall over every time it's presented with a new variation in user input or sequence of events that they didn't test. I see this effect everywhere in the software that we all use every day, which I'm sure is being developed by the same method.
My company now allocates 10% equipment loss/breakage per trip due to inept (and sometimes larcenous) inspection and repacking by TSA baggage screeners. The sad thing is that they keep wasting everyone's time and money checking and re-checking the same bags, same equipment, same travelers that they should already know are reliable. Just how long is this going to go on before U.S. taxpayers smarten up and start allocating their security dollars more wisely?
I think we're missing the point on what information the spooks are actually after. The favourite tool of police and military intelligence agencies around the world is i2 Analyst Notebook (look it up). It's designed to track associations between people, events, and other things, and to show them in a nice graphical presentation. To some extent the tool drives the intelligence gathering. What it wants is the associations: the contact lists, the meta-data of who contacted who, who was at a common place/event etc.. They don't care so much about the why - they can make up that part for themselves.
What idiotic comments by Beer. Few countries have the plentiful IT skills that Brazil has, and does he not realize that the country extends into the temperate south where it snows in the winter?
I agree completely with that policy by Brazil. It's the only was to establish international respect. When Canada began requiring pre-arranged visas for visitors from Brazil, Brazil was quick to require the same for visiting Canadians. When Canada raised the price of a visa, so did Brazil. I am able to avoid the cost by using my British passport to enter Brazil, but that means I'm embarrassed whenever I arrive there shortly after some new outrage perpetrated by the British government against Brazil, such as killing an innocent Brazilian on the tube platform because he was wearing a backpack and jacket, or illegally detaining a Brazilian journalist.
Good article, and it's time some more thought was put into future video standards.
Historically there were some hardware issues behind those early decisions on interlacing and the power-line-frequency frame rate in addition to the ones mentioned. The key point about interlacing is that it reduces the bandwidth required by half, which was a significant factor in designing the early TV electronics and creating the broadcast channels. It was still a factor in the more recent switch to digital channels.
As for the decision to use the powerline frequency, it's true that one reason was to prevent visible strobing, but the other was that it was just easy and cheap to use the powerline frequency as a reference because it's so reliable and tightly controlled. Accurate crystal oscillators weren't always so cheap as they are today.
There were a few bits in there that I didn't know.
I still think RSX11M was the best of the many operating systems I've developed software for in my life. The latest versions of Windows and Linux could learn a few lessons.
I used VAX/VMS as well, but the added layers of complexity made it less elegant an fun than RSX. Still, it was a viable alternative technology in the operating system world that's in danger of turning into a monoculture. I still remember the day that the DEC sales team came in to pitch their new corporate-mandated Unix message. Having spent years telling everyone that VMS left Unix in the dust, they seemed lost and confused. DEC never recovered from that.
In more detailed reports the researchers made it clear that this experimental result does not in any way change the fact that quantum entanglement can not be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light or backwards in time.
Well, I don't want to condone DDoS as a tactic under any circumstances, but....
Spamhaus is famous for their high-handed and arrogant attitude in blocking whole IP address ranges for the most trivial of reasons. If this DDoS attack exposes how many cheapskate hosting services rely blindly on their spam-and-a-lot-of-other-legitmate-traffic filtering services, then it has actually done the internet a service.
I've had a TouchPad with WebOS for about 18 months, and I quite like it. I use it mainly for simple purposes like portable web browsing, reading pdfs, checking email, checking my calendar, Skype video calls, listening to music on Pandora, occasionally watching video. For those purposes, it works fine. I also have an iPod Touch, and I find WebOS a bit more convenient to use than iOS. But honestly I don't think WebOS will make any difference at all as a TV operating system. It's advantages are all about touch operation and multi-tasking on a phone or tablet. Behind the GUI it's just another form of Linux, which is what all the TV operating systems are. I'm not sure what advantage LG would see in building their custom TV GUI on top of WebOS instead of Linux.
Don't worry about our Canadian police being hampered in their ability to monitor online activities now that C-30 is dead. Bill C-55 has been quietly introduced to give police the rights they wanted for warrantless online surveillance, as long as they believe it may be related to a serious crime, and they notify the subject afterward - eventually.
Don't worry about it. It's unlikely to be available outside the U.S.
Sandisk touts their SSD business? Sure, let's just sweep that debacle with the flagship models that didn't support TRIM under the carpet. While manufacturers like Intel were apologizing to customers and offering to replace drives with defective controllers, Sandisk's management maintained a stony silence for months that alienated a large percentage of their customers waiting for their brand-new SSDs to be fixed. No wonder the business tanked!
E-readers have improved every year in recent memory. I've bought a new one every year for the last 4 years in a row, most recently for the new glow screen. When I look around on the train, there's far more people with e-readers than with tablets, because they all understand that it's hard to hold a heavy tablet and read on the train where the ambient light level is too high. Tablets are e-readers are different devices for different market. E-readers naturally have a more adult demographic because the first thing a kid wants is a nice colourful tablet like all their friends. Only later in life can they afford to by more specialized gadgets for different purposes.
" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller (c.1946)
I'm not sure why this is fresh news. Kindles have been sold in the ubiquitous Staples office supply store chain in Canada for a couple of years, and Amazon.com ships Kindles to Canada as well. Amazon.ca has been operating a Canadian e-book store for even longer. Perhaps they're just announcing that from now on Kindles will be ordered through and shipped from the .ca site instead of the .com site? (Amazon supports the Kindle whispernet cellular network option in Canada in case you were wondering.)
However, Kobo remains much more popular in Canada than Kindle because their e-readers are offered in many more stores at more competitive prices, and national bookseller Chapters.ca partners with Kobo to offer an e-book store with better selection and often better prices than Amazon.
Almost every time I want to update an app on my iPod Touch, or download a new free app from some 3rd party, Apple pops up a box saying that their Terms & Conditions have changed, and I am required to read and confirm my understanding of a 43-page agreement (yes, 43 pages!) before I can proceed. No clue is offered as to what has changed. Of course I click "I Agree" and proceed with my download, assuming that one of my regular web news feeds will warn me if Apple has done anything too draconian.
My own company sells software and has a EULA. It's 3 paragraphs long, and it basically spells out the terms of licencing in a few brief sentences, states that it's up to you to know what you're doing with the software, and disclaims any responsibility for failure to meet your needs or consequential damages. We do follow legal cases on the enforceability of EULAs, and in some cases judges have decided that if the EULA is too long and cryptic, it is not enforceable. In other cases they have stated that if only a link is given, and not the actual text of the EULA, it is not enforceable. But there is no consistency.
This is hardly the only area in which one must agree to ludicrously extensive legal terms and conditions without reading them. As a small company which bids on government contracts in several countries, we are frequently required to agree to bid and acquisition regulations which run to millions of pages in thousands of separate places, all cross-referencing each other, stating thing such as the minimum size of our bathrooms for disabled women of visible minority race. It all seemed like a good idea to somebody at some time. But today it's beyond impossible to be aware of even a fraction of it, even if you were limiting yourself to contracting in one country. All one can do is keep in touch with your business community and be aware of any issues which have been a problem for others.
According to author Daniel Kahneman (Nobel price in Economics) in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, perceived "performance" in the financial industry is all an illusion based on random factors. So don't worry about those reviews, it's just a roll of the dice anyway. :)
Agree. It's easy to criticize Avira for not being ready for a change that's had a long preview cycle, especially when their software just crashes instead of warning of the incompatibility. But those who don't have the joy of managing software development projects may not appreciate that it's often slightly more difficult than waving one's magic wand. At least they straightforwardly acknowledged the problem, didn't make any excuses, and gave a time frame for fixing it. Would that all software companies did the same!
Not to mention that SanDisk is the company that continued to sell their defective Extreme SSD product (broken TRIM support) to customers for the last several months while maintaining complete silence about the issue.