* Posts by Graham Wilson

890 publicly visible posts • joined 14 May 2008

Yes, Prime Minister to return after 24 years

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

Program should be called "How The Home Office Works" or better still...

..."How the Ministry of Truth is Introducing ID Cards, Tapping Your Phones and Linking and Storing All Your Email and Social Network Contacts".

Disappearing bees mystery: Boffins finger regicide pesticides

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

@Kugutsu -- Re: What about Australia... It's only a matter of time.

"Australia is thus far lucky in that they do not have varroa."

It'll be only a matter of time, tragically. Biosecurity Australia and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) policies NOW run along the lines of 'commercial risk' instead of 'exclude if there's any potential threat'.

We've seen this recently where New Zealand, a country with a long history of fire blight infection in apples, can now import apples into a clean, fire blight-free Australia. Not long ago, importing apples into Australia from NZ would have been absolutely unthinkable!

In fact, recently NZ took Australia to the WTO to be able to import apples into Australia and won its case--such as is the power of free trade and commercial lobbying.

This is what happens when countries sign--err sorry, are forced to sign--WTO and other international treaties which sign away state autonomy.

It'll be too late when we citizens eventually realize that in this 'democracy' our votes have only about 1/3rd value when staked up against commercial lobbying and international trade pressures.

Champagne at CSIRO after WiFi patent settlement

Graham Wilson
Flame

Short-changed?

The amount sounds as if CSIRO's been short-changed.

Australia has a century-long habit of giving away everything it invents or develops for virtually nothing.

Research the matter and you'll find our list of freebies to the world is extensive!

Oz to review copyright law for digital age

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

@Araldite -- You're right of course.

Of course it's about the Optus/Telstra ruling.

If anyone really cares about this they should read the short and very vague draft terms of reference in the link with the article and then make a submission by 27th April pointing out that very specific issues need to be mentioned in the terms of reference--and that motherhood statements, as in this draft are unsatisfactory, as commercial vested interests will use this to their advantage. .

We need to include topics such as:

- What exactly is copyright, is the definition the same now as it was 120 years ago at the Berne Convention?

- What is the real extent of fair use? (People being afraid to test the extent, Wiki for example.)

- What is the dividing line between the public domain and copyright? Anything's that's published has some leakage into the public domain as people know of or remember parts of what's published -- of this leakage what can be mentioned /published -- the internet changes this' for example: once a popular copyrighted song heard on the radio may have been hummed or sung by the masses (to each other or with others listening), if the internet is used as a 'hard' copy of such social interaction it will automatically attract the wrath of publishers, whereas the former would never have done so (except at an organized public performance--on stage etc.).

- Continued protection of publishers by restricting access to orphaned works. 70-90% of 20th C. works are orphaned--still copyrighted BUT without owners. Orphaned works, if put in the public domain, would increase the pool of available material. Copyright holders have extreme objections to this and copyright law reflects their wishes (effectively, this is a form of restrictive trade practice).

- The never-ending extensions in copyright durations have little or nothing to do with commercial realities of copyright--extensions being vastly longer than the times for any meaningful monetary returns. This is another way of reducing the pool of available material, hence less competition for publishers. This part of Copyright Law is effectively state-sanctioned affirmative action for publishers. (I wish the law would protect my work/income like that.)

Topics such as those within this rough list (and others) need to be spelt out in the terms of reference. Otherwise, their absence gives the reviewers a way out, and the commercial lobbyists a way in to get exactly what they want. And this is not in the best interests of the general public.

.

Republicans shoot down proposed ban on Facebook login boss-snoop

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Re: How far?

2nd para -- Precisely!

Graham Wilson
Happy

@ Dinky Carter

Just to show I'm not as miserable as you might imagine, I've given you a 'thumbs up'.

I do what ZenCoder does--use the phone. Actually, I prefer to be with others in person--I've found no realistic electronic substitute for that as yet.

For me, PCs and iPhones etc. are still a long way from being real humans, they're not friendly, warm and personable and immediately responsive as real humans are.

Graham Wilson
Flame

@Lee Dowling -- Correct "it's impossible to find someone who's worth voting for."

"Modern democracy just means that it's impossible to find someone who's worth voting for."

Today, if you become president or prime minister or even a member of the legislature it puts you ABSOLUTELY apart from the average person. Just to get into office means that you have to be a privileged, motivated and highly-driven go-getter with scruples that can quickly change from moment to moment, situation to situation. You have to be one who is prepared to do all sorts of deals, shady or otherwise--a person who can easily have temporary liaisons and allegiances with people or organisations you don't like or believe in, and you have to be capable of breaking promises or changing direction or axing longstanding friends and colleagues without any qualms or feelings of quilt.

If this is not your type of personality of if you don't accept this as part of the process of getting into office then you'll never ever make it into the position. These are essential prerequisites for the job, and you MUST have this kind of personality to carry the job out successfully!

Clearly, this is not an environment for normal ordinary people, which means they're automatically excluded from standing for 'democratic' office. If democracy requires a peculiar breed of person to stand for office then it means democracy isn't a level playing field and it simply doesn't work as advertised. With so such inbuilt hypocrisy, it's little wonder those on whom we try to force democracy reject it.

Most of us know this instinctively, and most of us know we can do little about it, hence the widespread cynicism of politicians and the political process amongst Western citizens.

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

It's absolutely extraordinary that this topic had ever appeared.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that this topic had ever appeared.

If my employer ever wanted to search my Facebook account then he'd have a very difficult time.

I. I don't normally use Facebook, it's puerile trash--the sort of thing you normally grow out of after kindergarten. For me, why people use it absolutely defies logic. I see no reason whatsoever to be involved with it. No one has ever given me an even vaguely satisfactory reason why you'd bother. The best I can do is that it's some sort of lemming effect--a dangerous meme that's infected a certain sector of the population!

2. If I *have* to create a Facebook account, which happens from time to time as I'm in IT, then:

3. I create and account under an alias using a disposable email address.

4. I always use a different IP address to do so.

5. Even the disposable email account is created with a different IP address.

6. I never link anyone that may be in one account/group with another other.

7. I never contact friends or associates that use Facebook using Facebook. (I never even look them up in case two separate groups may be linked by my temporary connection--even though I'm using an alias.

8. If for some extraordinary reason I had to use two Facebook accounts from the same machine within a short period of time, then the browser is cleaned of cookies etc. Just to be sure I'd use Opera for one session and Firefox for another. Between sessions the IP would be changed by disconnecting from the ISP and reconnecting and checking to see the IP has actually changed. (Normally, I'd use two separate machines) using different ISPs and IP addresses.

Oh BTW, I always log-in to El Reg using my real name and never post anonymously, so I'm hardly paranoid when it comes to the internet. This should tell the reader how little trust I have in social media sites. (And this report proves that I'm on the correct course.)

Even with Google I clean cookies between searches, use multiple machines for different searches and change IP addresses. I do not want a Google profile to build up every time I do a search.

I can't believe most of the world doesn't follow these simple rules. Banks don't normally close and their staff go home whilst leaving the front and safe doors open. All I do is straightforward internet security basics.

Why others don't do the same simply defies me!

Europe to assemble crack cyber-intelligence nerve centre

Graham Wilson
Black Helicopters

It's time for a new MkII internet.

Leave this one intact. There has to be somewhere for the myriads of government agencies and security experts to hang out and annoy the masses.

Now, when I surf this internet, I get an uneasy squeamish feeling my scrotum is covered with crabs all spying on me with evil intent.

It's time for a new crab-free on-line experience (like it was 15 years ago).

100 EARTH-LIKE PLANETS orbit stars WITHIN 30 LIGHT-YEARS!

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Good. I want to migrate to one.

Reading my other El Reg posts of today, it's clear that I'm a life form truly ill-adapted to this planet. Perhaps a sky with red light would soothe my personality more than a blue one.

On a planet circling a red star, going out in the midday sun should be safe for us mad dogs and Englishmen--at least the UV won't get us!

Now how do I get there?

Oz national broadcaster goes open with archives

Graham Wilson
Holmes

@ Glen Turner 666 - Re: What about the rest? -- An excellent point which I omitted in my post.

Your point is very well made.

From 1932 to say 2002 when the ABC got serious with digital--there's a 70 year block of analog material that mostly remains to be digitized. It's my understanding a few items have been digitized and these are the result of the archive material being used in recent programs.

This large block of analog data is of great concern for two reasons:

- The commercial licensing that you cite, and;

- The possible loss or deterioration of at least part of the archive if digitization is not undertaken soon.

Commercial licencing is a specific worry as the archives will be locked up again and only available at a cost. This is a huge disincentive for ordinary or casual users, it means that for all intents and purposes, most archive usage will be commercial. If there is to be any public access it will be difficult and or inconvenient and possibly expensive.

My second point is worrying too as I've no clear idea of what state the archive is in, especially the older stuff that's in that intervening period between the transcription disks and reliable tape storage. This covers a time frame of somewhere between 1940--the wire recorder era and the 1970s. Even the period between the late 1970s and late 80s is of considerable concern, for that was the time when Ampex had major binder problems with its recording tape formulation--the binder would stick and or liquify with age.

(I've seen the mess it causes firsthand, it's nasty. Even when the binder is just beginning to break down it clogs the tape heads in a major way. Mastering tape type 456/457 was the most prone. Being a mastering tape--as opposed to the general workhorses, types 406/407--456/457 is the most likely to be used for archiving. There's a photo of the problem at Wiki under 'Ampex'.)

Back to commercialization of the archives. There's a huge precedence for commercialization of government film archives in the US, where the US government and military allowed huge swathes of military and other films (including WWII German newsreels captured by the US) to rot through for the want of maintenance. Rather than maintain the films, the military sold them all off in a block/job lot to a commercial company called Periscope Film (at one stage the military was actually planning to dump them all).

Periscope have packaged many films onto DVDs which can be purchased for a considerable price. Periscope also makes some titles available on free sites such as the Internet Archive but these have been nobbled with a timer/counter-ticker right in the middle of the image. They also now come with Periscope opening credits.

Here's two nobbled Periscope films from the Internet Archive:

http://archive.org/details/TheWingsOfTheFleet

http://archive.org/details/GermanNavyNewsreels

Here's the 'Periscope Film' home site followed by their story of the film archive :

http://www.periscopefilm.com/

http://www.periscopefilm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=28

This must not be allowed to happen to the ABC archive under any circumstances. In fact, if I get wind of it, I'll immediately start whingeing to pollies about it. So too should everyone else.

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

Very mixed feelings about the ABC's so-called 'Public Domain' release of its archives.

With reference to the "gem among the releases" and link to the 1974 Clarke interview, I don't recall having seen it before but I'm very pleased to have seen it now. It only strengthens my already high opinion of Arthur C. Clarke. (I'm one of many who skived off from a uni physics lab practical in 1968 to see the Clarke/Kubrick spectacular, 2001: A space Odyssey.)

Yamal Dodgy Data correctly points out these archives are from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which like the BBC, is a government owned organisation, thus having them unknown and locked in archives isn't of use to anyone.

I'm annoyed the quality of this clip is so poor given that it's obvious the original footage is much better. This video would have been copied from high quality 16mm film, and as it's almost certainly news footage, it's likely come from the actual camera stock, thus the original ought to be the best quality available--as 16mm goes.

This clip is only 512 x 288 px, yet STILL its image quality doesn't do justice to this low resolution raster size. It's low resolution, full of nasty compression artifacts and when viewed full screen, the film grain isn't even slightly discernible (it ought to be). The exact resolution of 16mm is subject to argument but with established parameters I'll roughly estimate and calculate what it's limiting resolution ought to be.

In 1974, the footage would likely have been Kodak 16mm 7266 Tri-x reversal B&W shot with an Arriflex camera using precision Angenieux, Schneider or Zeiss lenses. Here, high speed film was used for indoors, but high speed film doesn't have the resolution of slow film, thus professional lenses must have limiting spatial resolutions compatible with the slower (sharper) films so I've considered their effect on image resolution to be negligible (but in practice you'd allow for it).

- 7266/16mm spatial resolution/MTF is 50% at 50 cycles/mm & 20-30% at 100 c/mm.

- 16mm aperture is 10.26mm x 7.49mm.

- Assuming scan at exactly 90 deg to horizontal then allow a Nyquist factor of 2.2.

- For simplicity, ignore any cycle/pixel 'size' differences.

- Assume no meaningful response above 100 cycles/mm.

- Thus, to capture ALL image detail the film must be scanned at this resolution:

10.26 x 100 x 2.2 = 2,257.2 horiz.; round up: 2,260 px

7.49 x 100 x 2.2 = 1647.8 vert.; round up: 1650 px

- Masking aspect ratio 4/3 for screen display will change (may reduce) this a little.

Hence, roughly we have to scan the original archive film at 2,260 x 1650 px to ensure all data is faithfully captured.

Now, what has the ABC put into the public domain? Right, the clip is only 512 x 288px, and it's been seriously compressed to boot! Frankly, viewed full screen, the artifacts are ugly, distracting and annoying, and the limited resolution makes the image as soft as a baby's bum. Check for yourself!

.

PARTIAL 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' RELEASES BY THE ABC

What the ABC is effectively doing is to only make partial public domain releases; thus we, the poor long-suffering public, get shitty sub-standard copies. In the meantime, by retaining full-resolution copies, the ABC keeps all its options open!

The ABC is far from being alone in this practice: the BBC, UK National Archives, Australian War Memorial--a particularly bad example; Imperial War Museum UK, British Library, National Library of Australia, National Gallery UK, Australian Museum and art galleries in each Australian state are all at it--and that's just to mention a tiny few!

Above, I've only mentioned publicly owned entities, government enterprises etc. It's clear the citizenry owns the content of these archives but it has strictly limited access to them. If we physically visit these institutions we get quality, go on-line and we get almost unusable junk info. Once, when the internet was still dial-up, there was little option other than to visit these institutions or get low resolution copies on-line. Now, most of us have high-speed ADSL etc. and we've had it for years. Of course, commercial operations do exactly the same thing but that's a harder matter to resolve.

So what gives, what's their excuse? Many argue that much of their material is still in copyright but that's plain bunkum. Sure, they've copyrighted material, but except for libraries, it's often only a fraction of their collections: for example, The Imperial War Museum is awash with documents, photographs etc. that are much older than 70 years; and these materials were only ever subject to Crown copyright (which if technicalities arose, governments could fix instantly if they so desired).

There are two reasons why government/public institutions continue to hide behind copyright laws, the first is they're frightened of the internet, in the long run it has the potential to reduce their operations (and staff) by having most of their collections on-line; the second is more pernicious, which is that much higher resolution copies than those available on the internet are available FOR SALE in their shops or on-line. This is stupid logic, it's like a council that can't survive financially without levying parking fines, clearly the financial paradigm is wrong (although very understandable, especially in Commonwealth countries where public library, museum and art gallery access is usually free).

Still, this deliberate subversion and unlegislated extension of copyright is very much not in the long term interest of the public and eventually it should be rectified by legislatures. For starters, education is a looser. On-line students who've become used to high resolution video games, images etc. will simply gloss over boring low-resolution materials even if easily available, thus it's incumbent on these institutions to provide the best image quality possible. After all, these images are either already in the public domain or they're image reproductions, or they're photos of objects collectively owned by the populous at large.

For example, it takes little effort to imagine how ineffective teaching WWI history could be for students when presented with War images that are inherently very poor but which have been further reduced in quality to little more than blurs by additional compression and size reductions (as with most existing on-line histories of WWI. The internet is awash with this barely-informative junk and it turns kids off--I've seen it all too often to know it's fact). Nevertheless, many institutions that possess original photos still refuse to make Nyquist-limit quality photos available on the Web even though these images are in public ownership.

Others simply cannot get to institutions to see or research these materials firsthand, thus they must rely on internet access. In the interests of fairness alone, on-line image quality should be high. For example, many Australians live so far away from the national capital, Canberra, that they've never been there let alone had the opportunity to visit and browse through the national libraries, galleries and museums of that city.

Also, low resolution images with little detail and loaded with compression artifacts are a definite turn-off, especially so since the advent of high resolution screens (I'm using 2560 x 1140 px now). Furthermore, resolution and image quality is only going to skyrocket in the next year or two with the advent of super high resolution OLED screens. Argument about high resolution images being useless on smartphone or iPod screens is also complete bunkum as it's already easy to reformat web pages to correctly fit these small screens and do so in ways that pages are presented ergonomically.

.

ARE ANY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS DOING THINGS CORRECTLY?

Yes, some are well on the way and are clearly aware of the public's needs. Two excellent examples are the Internet Archive in San Francisco (http://archive.org/index.php) and the Library of Congress in Washington DC (http://www.loc.gov/index.html).

Whilst not perfect, they're the benchmarks by which to judge others. The Internet Archive provides many different formats for each type of public domain listing whether it's sound, video or text; and the Library of Congress's 'Prints & Photographs Online Catalog' is a wonderful example of how to present an image with an extreme range of size formats from say 50kB to 150MB or larger (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/), here users can easily select the most appropriate size for their needs.

Here is a LOC image presented in multiple sizes http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/det1994015865/PP/ It's Atlantic City, NJ about 1900, the smallest image is 57kB, the largest 154.9MB. Download the smallest then zoom in, repeat the exercise with the largest and be surprised at its incredible detail. Image resources of such high quality on the internet are truly rare beasts but it shouldn't be thus.

Access to the ABC's archives is to be welcomed but the above example amply demonstrates how inadequate the ABC's approach to quality has been. Essentially, the internet is a zone devoid of high quality. With few exceptions, almost all data is compressed to buggery and or devoid of truly high quality. The internet is or has become mediocrity personified.

The move away from paper-based books, sooner or later, will require on-line images to meet or exceed the quality of book images. Today, in El Reg's "CD: The indestructible music format that REFUSES TO DIE", many of you techies posted valid comments about CD quality being considerably better than most on-line downloads, yet few if any of you seem prepared to bat for improved on-line image quality. Frankly, I find this a little strange and inconsistent.

I'd think a good place to start would be to pressure the new ABC on-line archive to supply an image quality that befits the actual quality of the archive's content.

Reckon El Reg and its outspoken bloggers ought to be up to the task.

TSA bars security guru from perv scanner testimony

Graham Wilson
Flame

At least Bruce Schneier's on our side.

Anyone who has Bruce Schneier's famous book knows it's good that he's on our side.

The TSA's excuse to stop Schneier from testifying is nothing other than an utter disgrace and a sham.

It's times such as this that (a) you've proof that democracy isn't working and (b), effectively the terrorists have won as they've enabled an opportunistic and authoritarian Security Industry to rampantly run riot over our rights, not to mention our dignity.

EC tears duvet off Universal-EMI mega-music romp

Graham Wilson
Flame

For the sake of music consumers everywhere I hope the merger is quashed.

For the sake of music consumers everywhere, I hope this merger is quashed by the EC regulators.

If EC regulators fail, then like Greece, it's time to truly question whether the EC is really for its citizens or only under the control of large multinationals.

Spooked spooks made Symantec end Huawei fling - new claim

Graham Wilson
Pirate

Does anybody care?

There's no doubt that Huawei is China's 'Motorola', and that it's an exciting and innovative company; but its strategic alliances with China's establishment would make it a very risky partner for any Western hi-tech company.

However, in the case of Symantec it probably doesn't matter. Any 'security' company that's been so successfully hacked and violated as Symantec means that it's probably worth stuff-all to the US government.

So why then would the US Government be interested anyway (unless it's some kind of honeypot trap)?

Sitting down all day is killing you

Graham Wilson
Holmes

@silverburn -- Re: Cycling -- Probably, that's unless...

...you take the Donald Rumsfeld option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_desk

Graham Wilson
Devil

@Destroy All Monsters -- Re: BOFH fodder! Another Guilt-Ridden edict, the latest in a long line.

This Guilt-Ridden edict is the latest in a long line that goes back to at least the pilgrim fathers or the beginnings of protestantism, and it seems we can most likely blame it on Donald Rumsfeld. Not content with just warmongering--which you'd reckon ought to be enough for anyone--he's now convinced do-gooders we need to stand at our desks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_desk

What comes next? Will those who get back pain whilst standing then sue their employers for injury?

Employers ought to opt for the sitting option. Productivity would not only be higher but also there'd be less lawsuits if employees actually drop dead whilst at their desks.

Graham Wilson
Flame

What's more risky--PC or iPod?

What's more risky, sitting on your bum surfing the Internet or doing it on an iPod whilst obliviously walking across busy streets.

Going by my vehicle's many recent close encounters of the iPod kind, I'll take the risk of sitting at my PC.

(At least they'll be able to carry me off to the morgue in one piece instead of being washed off the roadway with a powerful hose.)

Oz regulator to Apple: Don’t call it 4G if you can’t connect

Graham Wilson
Flame

However, that doesn't stop Telstra from promoting its so-called 4G with impunity, does it?

"Would it be quibbling for El Reg to note that since there’s no such thing as a genuine “4G” network, in the absence of any genuine “4G” standard? Or would that sound like we’re letting Apple off the hook?"

However, that doesn't stop Telstra from promoting its so-called 4G, moreover it continues to do so in the absence of any real service--pinpoint pockets on a map DO NOT constitute a service, 4G-beta or otherwise!

Funny that, whilst the ACCC has the temerity to take on the Cult of Cupertino, it doesn't have the guts to take on Telstra.

(When you're Telstra you can scare the shit out of politicians, be a monopolistic brat, treat customers with utter contempt, and be a general all-round lack-off-service carpetbagger because you know that many of your shareholders are the little mums and dads of Australia--those who were conned by governments of both persuasions to buy Telstra shares during their nasty, grubby grab for money by their sell-off of public assets that took more than 130 years to build up.)

Telstra sparks up Reach cable

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

It's about time too.

It's about time too. Up until now circuits to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea etc. have been terribly slow. For example, South Korea and Taiwan have excellent networks yet viewing their websites here in Australia is painfully slow.

In the past, priority has been given to connecting to US circuits whilst in reality a huge percentage of our trade has been done with these Asian countries. Upgrading these circuits makes sense.

CD: The indestructible music format that REFUSES TO DIE

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Old habits die hard.

It's for the same reason that vinyl still has a niche market. CDs are convenient, easy to use and people have been spinning disks of one type or another for about 110 years.

Old habits die hard.

(And I've still several thousands of them.)

New NASA snap of game developer's electric cart FOUND ON MOON

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Lunokhod 2, a truly remarkable project for the early '70s era.

The Lunokhod 2 moon project was truly remarkable for the 1970s era; it has never been given sufficient credit in the West (having being overshadowed by NASA's Apollo Project and Cold War tensions). In many ways, Lunokhod 2's sophistication rivaled those of the Apollo Project and in some it overtook them.

Anyone who is interested in this stuff, I'd strongly recommend that you view the three part YouTube video titled "Tank on the Moon" (parts 1/3 to 3/3). It's a surprisingly informative documentary. Here's the link to the first part (1/3):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFCehZlMHc&feature=related

I saw this program a few years back on TV and I took an instant liking to Vyacheslav (Viatchslav) Dovgan--one of those who worked on the Lunokhod project. Dovgan strikes me as not only a very intelligent witty fellow but I'd reckon he'd be great to work with. Listen carefully to what he has to say.

Also, here's another very interesting, partly-restored Russian colour doco, "Object-E8. Lunokhod" that's recently appeared on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=breztPLXWSk

It's nice to know Lunokhod-2 has been found once again.

PoC code uses super-critical Windows bug to crash PCs

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

Is Nero running the Windows security show? There's far too much fiddling and stuff-all action.

I'm damn tired of hearing about Microsoft and its Windows security fuck-ups. Clearly, it's Nero's show as there's never-ending fiddling, year after year, whilst Windows security continues to burn.

I wish those truly authoritative and respected in IT would succinctly summarize why there's a never-ending string of vulnerabilities in Windows OSes and why we and MS are continually attempting patching them. Everyone knows that Windows security is like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke after the global warming sea rise--a lost cause--but most, including many IT types, actually understand why it is that Windows security in its present form can't be fixed once and for all, and it needs an authoritative industry-wide explanation that even neophytes can understand.

Over the years, in both El Reg and elsewhere, I've tried to point out why this problem continues to exist together with some of the issues that need to be addressed if the problem is to be essentially fixed. ...But then, I'm only an El Reg commentard, thus one wouldn’t expect me to have much influence.

What's truly perplexing is why over the years that the heavies of industry, university IT types etc. haven't broadcast to the world with a megaphone that fundamental design problems exist within Windows (and some other OSes too). To mention a few, for example: user, program and operating system files share the same file structure thus a vulnerability exists; access to the OS directories (\Windows\system32 etc.) is possible and had by all and sundry; that there are no intrinsic Chinese walls between user, program and OS data etc.; and that existing files aren't structured to intrinsically support inbuilt authentication, encryption, encapsulation and extended metadata (owner, last authorised user etc. etc.).

It's a sham that there's no widespread and open debate over these crucial issues. The question remains as to why this high-level debate over design flaws within Windows OSes' security has been thwarted or has never seen the light of day (except in a most superficial and prosaic way). (If it were not so then there'd be widespread ideas together with a few consensuses on how to fix the problem.)

I used to think IT types didn't understand the issues involved or that they had gotten too bogged down in the minutiae of specific Windows security flaws to bother with the grand picture. Nevertheless, Windows' security problems are so monumental and have between with us for so long that one would have thought by now that a few of our brightest minds would have spoken out over the issue.

Whilst mum remains the word with the IT intelligentsia over Windows design flaws, it'll continue to be business as usual for Microsoft Marketing.

Apple slide-to-unlock spat with Samsung hits the buffers

Graham Wilson
FAIL

Shades of the past resurface.

Those who have been around for a while will remember the Motorola flip-open-to-answer patent. To dodge it Nokia introduced the considerably less convenient slide-to-answer arrangement.

Now it's here we go again, and again.

It's time governments legislated to stop trivial patents, for in the long run they cost users/consumers considerable money not to mention inconvenience, waste of human time and effort, and of course, the lining of lawyers' pockets.

Right, I've already spotted the fault in my logic: the most predominant species in our governments are lawyers.

90% of AU net users want 'do not track'

Graham Wilson
Flame

90% doesn't mean governments will act.

Even if it were 100% then probably nothing much would happen to protect us users.

View it this way. Consider all the legislation concerning the internet over recent years. Who are the main beneficiaries--governments and corporations of course.

'Tis a race where we users come in a poor third place!

'When you disagreed with Steve Jobs, you lost'

Graham Wilson
Flame

There's nothing new here, publishers' cartels have been around centuries.

Nothing new here, publishers' cartels have been around centuries. That they're at it again should be no surprise.

How many times have you opened a book to read on the author/publisher/copyright page "Not for sale in the USA" or similar? (Similar issue with DVD region codes.) These contrivances allow publishers to sub-licence and or divide/use markets in any way they want--and of course, to their absolute advantage. The British and USA markets have always been the kings of such arrangements, history is littered with these agreements.

Not only are fair trade issues involved here but also copyright ones. Over the years, governments have only ever tackles these issues in a piecemeal manner. As I've said many times on El Reg, BOTH authors and consumers will continue to be ripped off by publishers until copyright and monopoly laws are rewritten from scratch to make them unambiguously fair for all.

Smartphone users sue Apple, Facebook over mobile app privacy

Graham Wilson
Unhappy

Difficult to stop privacy breaches w/o leglislation.

The only way to stop Apple, Facebook etc. invading users' privacy is to sue them and be successful. If law suits are successful and the lobby big enough then legislation might be enacted stop them.

Of course, legislation will only ensue if the effective lobby from users greatly exceeds the paid lobbyists from Apple etc. (that's how our democracies work these days).

CSIRO: warming up to five degrees by 2070

Graham Wilson
Stop

@Martin Budden -- Re: Oh, look -- Some points many are missing.

This is missing a key point! Those who don't live in Australia (and many Australians too) are probably unaware that the CSIRO of their childhood is nothing like the organisation of today that bears the CSIRO name.

CSIRO was once Australia's revered scientific organisation but today I'd question that. There's no doubt the CSIRO still has some excellent people but once its scientists were free to speak their minds openly, now the organisation's output is carefully crafted by media gurus long before its read by anyone outside the organisation. Often scientists regularly self-censor themselves long before the report stage to ensure that their careers won't be affected.

As with many government organisations in recent years, the CSIRO had a management takeover and everything from government policy to political correctness colour anything (reports, comments etc.) that leaves the organisation.

It's not that climate change isn't important, it is but it's what's not said or the emphasis that's put into certain aspects of reports that is of concern.

Massaging report from scientific organisations in any form is unacceptable. Even generating such a sensitive report in the first place (in the light of so much other information on the world stage), is, no doubt, politically vexatious.

Microsoft rolls over as Uniloc wins decade-long war

Graham Wilson
Flame

Microsoft, the King of sleazebags -- par excellence!

Yuh really have to give credit where credit's due, Microsoft is the absolute King of sleazebags.

Just think, what other company would pirate anti-piracy software, employ it in their products and then start out on a worldwide moral campaign about the evils of piracy; then for good measure sue anyone who pirated Microsoft software?

If Microsoft had never existed and someone had written a novel with this plot it'd be laughed at for being so unbelievable. When the history is finally written about Microsoft, someone will point out that it's put the 19th C. railway baron/moguls to shame with its lower-than-gutter ethics.

I'm feeling as if I want to chunder.

Oz says 41 hits a day turn bloggers into publishers

Graham Wilson
Black Helicopters

@Mark 65 -- Re: Bias? Be warned!

"The first one will just tell you to FRO (fuck right off, in local parlance) and there's precious little you can do."

Be warned, here's part of an abstract from the article "The cyberboundaries of reputation: implications of the Australian High Court’s Gutnick decision for journalists." from Bond University:

"The High Court decision in the landmark Dow Jones v. Gutnick defamation case in December 2002 was eagerly anticipated. The unanimous decision that defamation occurs where Internet material is downloaded rather THAN WHERE IT WAS UPLOADED angered media proprietors and free speech advocates who predicted publishers would have to work to the lowest common denominator of the most restrictive laws throughout the world if they were to avoid litigation."

The article is found here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/79/

Being anonymous by using aliases or an "Anonymous Coward" as here at El Reg, are just elementary obfuscations, when the heavies actually get involved then it's as if a searchlight were focused on one.

If you want to do something silly or as overtly risky as that then you'd better use Tor or the likes thereof, and you'd better not fuck it up as did LulzSec. Right, some of the best hackers screwed by a simple mistake. Using real IP addresses are like Park Avenue with your home door at the end of it. Publishing in defiance is a very risky business.

About the most outrageous and subversive thing I do on the Web is to post highly opinionated rages on El Reg, nevertheless, I always assume I'm known or can be easily traced because of my IP address; the same principle applies to the telephone or any other public media. Why crooks continue to get caught because of yacking on the telephone always perplexes me. Don't these fools realize that anybody and or everybody can listen or is listening.

Anyway, they may have no license but that won't stop them finding you.

HD glitch for Apple TV punters

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

Oh no, not the Copyright Industry at it yet again!

This is the second of two copyright stories in one day where, as usual, the Copyright Industry is behaving in its typical deplorable manner.

Sooner or later this industry is going to cop a three-torpedo broadside that it'll be lucky to limp home from.

For many, 'fire one'; 'fire two'; 'fire three' can't come soon enough.

Australia considers national digital archive

Graham Wilson
Flame

@Dr Paul Taylor -- Re: common sense

Clearly, you've little or no idea about how moving from paper-based to digital/electronics records completely changes the data/storage paradigm (this is not only my idea but also of those more eminently qualified in the subject than me).

If you want a clue as to where to begin I'll provide an example that illustrates just a few of the issues:

Say I want to steal your paper-based personnel/medical records from a locked filing cabinet within some institution's records department. What do I have to do to achieve my goal? Now reconsider the same problem but this time your records are locked away digitally on a file server.

- Consider where I'd have to be physically located, the risks I'd have to take and the time it would take me to steal just one physical paper-based record.

- Now consider how long it would take and the effort involved in stealing a million of them.

- Now recalculate the results when the records are all digital and located on one file server.

- Now repeat the exercise again, this time by attempting to steal secrets from very secure locations/sites such as NASA, the War Office, the Pentagon etc.

It's a no-brainer to figure the difference, I'll give you another clue. Think of how many times in the news in recent years you've heard of break-ins of organisations where a million secret physical paper-based records were stolen. What's your guess? Zero perhaps? ...And how many times with digital records eh? Once, twice, ten times a week or more?

We've compulsory voting here in Australia and still very many people don't vote even with normal monitoring and fines, so much so that Government is considering using its surveillance powers to compulsorily make authorities search through driving licence, rates, bank and other records then automatically enroll the dodgers whether they like it or not. If all records were paper-based, as they were only a few years ago, then government wouldn't even consider the possibility, it be just too much trouble.

Sure, it's not impossible to scout a nation's worth of paper-based records and effectively have almost 100% compliance as Nazi Germany proved with great expense and effort in the 1930s and 40s. However, in a modern Western democracy it would--or ought to be--very difficult indeed for a government to do so.

Since 9/11, we've seen many instance of where the words 'government' and 'Orwellian' easily coexist in the same sentence. Many people consider such issues very important and view these trends with considerable concern.

P.S.: enforcement/compliance of the compulsory lodging of physical books versus same for digital data invokes a very different methodology in each case, in the latter widespread data mining would be required. Not only will an analysis of this data almost certainly reveal new information not originally sought after by government but it has no mandate to use or even view it. But only a fool would think it extremely unlikely that the lack of a mandate would stop government from doing so.

Methinks, your response is not only daft but also somewhat woolly.

pr

Graham Wilson

@silent_count -- Yeah but...

The lack of stamina defeats me and besides, as I mentioned earlier, it's already been done:

"Frankly, I'd have much more faith in the Internet Archive Wayback machine than some proposed tinpot operation in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php"

Oh, and I'll bet Google also has archives that are second to none.

Graham Wilson
Big Brother

@JustaKOS -- Re: @JustaKOS -- @Graham Wilson - What on earth does the this mean?

Right, especially last para.

Putting one's paranoid cap on, this begs the question whether any technology especially developed for such archiving would be adapted or retrofitted for use by spooks. One doesn't have to answer that as most of us already very well know the answer.

The more I think about this project the more it concerns me.

Graham Wilson
Coat

@JustaKOS -- Re: @Graham Wilson - What on earth does the this mean?

Fine, seems there's little disagreement between us. You'll see that I'm not against internet archiving by my post reply to "Timing?", in fact I'm very much for it being a bit of a history buff. It's just that I simply can't conceive how it will work as efficiently as the paper system (which isn't all that efficient anyway, as many small publications/magazines simply don't bother to register with or post publications to the archive).

BTW, I thought I expand on my comment "If you only stored those who posted from Australia onto Australian-based sites then you'd not get a representative sample." I live in Australia and I've no idea when I last posted to an Australian site--perhaps a year or so ago, but I've done so hundreds of times to overseas sites within the same interval. Moreover, I rarely visit Australian sites--for instance, a quick check of the history log shows none for today, and when I do it's usually for something as prosaic as finding postage rates.

Thus, your point about "falsified representation of Australian culture" seems very valid. As Andrew Martin 1 observes, this proposal is "about two decades too late", so it's hard to see how it'll work unless they've some magic proposal we've not been told about, which I consider fanciful.

A very important point that I missed earlier is that this proposal is an amendment to the Copyright Act, which makes the proposal even more ludicrous! Therefore, this post--which technically is copyright to me in Australia and to the publisher, foreign-based El Reg with foreign-based servers--would require archiving under this proposal. Policing this will be a nightmare, not to mention expensive (hence my earlier featherbedding comment).

Even if this post were significant enough for archiving, which is extremely unlikely, then how on earth would they ensure the efficiency of archiving process unless some system of monitoring were to be in place.

My mind boggles.

Graham Wilson

Re: Timing? -- Right.

Right, it's another waste of money.

Archiving the internet is an extremely important function but wasting government money on a project that'll ultimately fail without massive and ongoing resources is not the way to go about it.

Graham Wilson
Thumb Down

Re: What on earth does the this mean?

"Suspicions? Why on earth should you have those?"

Obviously, you don't live there.

"...I don't see why they should be interested in any Register articles other than ones written by Australians".

So how would they know unless they were monitoring IP addresses? If you only stored those who posted from Australia onto Australian-based sites then you'd not get a representative sample.

Frankly, I'd have much more faith in the Internet Archive Wayback machine than some proposed tinpot operation in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

Seems to me to be just another featherbed for public servants, if you've been following Australian politics lately then you'd know what I mean (the Oz government is the joke of the world--if Mars had a population like us then our planet would hide it in shame) .

Graham Wilson
Flame

What on earth does the this mean?

If one lives in Australia and posts to El Reg, does it mean that the poster will be forced to submit a copy to the digital archive? What is meant by online publishing anyway?

If so, then it'll be a sham. Gone are the days when submitting to the national archive was simple; then publication was more or less an orderly process by established book publishers. The internet shatters this process.

Also, I'm suspicious enough of government to assume that such a scheme will aid in data mining for subversives, undesirables and opponents and that surveillance laws will give government the right to mine the data.

If I had to submit a copy of everything I 'published' online then it'd put the kibosh on much of what I said. Alternatively, I'd be forced to use Tor.

SOPA poked an angry bear and set it loose on the net

Graham Wilson
Boffin

There's so much in this article it's difficult to be specific.

As I read this article, I wanted to argue for or against over almost every one of Rob Levine's quotes but clearly the article's large expanse prevents this. Nevertheless, there are a few points/observations I'd make, some relate to what he doesn't say in the article (although perhaps he covers them in the book).

Levine covers many copyright/IP issues and his take on them makes sense whether I'm for or against them. He's too pro commerce for my liking. I'm not against commerce benefiting from copyright by a long shot but it's what he doesn't say that pushes him over the line well into the copywriters' camp.

First, Levine implies the anger over copyright is recent and perhaps most of it is. What he doesn't mention is that the anger, which underlies the current rage, goes back at least 126 years to the Berne Convention of 1886. This is when overly loose copyright laws did a complete flip, moved in the opposite direction and morphed into draconian rights we've known for over a century. The then copyright lobby wiped the floor with users' rights, fairness etc., then flushed them away and there's been a simmering resentment ever since.

Second, this resentment had little opportunity to express itself until the Internet. Before the Internet, book piracy, pressing records etc. were very difficult activities, especially on a large scale. Large scale meant that only a large organisation was behind the piracy and thus it was easily dealt with at law.

Third, Levine doesn't deal with the travesty that constitutes orphaned works under copyright law. It's conservatively estimated that somewhere between 75-95% of all copyrighted works over the entire 20th Century are orphaned. This means (a) they've no current viable owner, (b) they're out of print or otherwise unavailable and (c) copies which still exist in libraries or with private owners etc., nevertheless, still can't be copied because they CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN COPYRIGHT. The orphaned works fiasco doesn't financially benefit publishers directly but it does so by removing vast quantities of still-viable material from the marketplace, thus it's no wonder authors and publishers love this section of the Berne Convention. In essence, this is anti-competitive and it ought to be challenged under anti competition laws--or the conflict between copyright and anti-competition laws resolved.

In the meantime, consumers of copyrighted material are ripped off even further.

Forth, stuff that's already in the public domain is far too easily put into copyright. Information that's already in the public domain should always remain there, only genuinely new stuff should be copyrightable. Moreover, the definition of what constitutes the public domain is in desperate need of a precise 21st Century definition. A centuries-old folk song shouldn't be copyrighted just because someone has changed a couple of notes or changed its key; it should be only copyrightable after extensive modification which renders it intrinsically different to the original. The extent of that change being such that although the tune might be recognisable, it is clearly not the original tune to the extent that it may even irritate those already familiar with the tune in its original form.

Another such example (of many and various others) is where an out-of-copyright photograph/artwork is owned say by a museum which rephotographs it and claims copyright, which essentially then takes it out of the public domain because the organisation has ownership and possession of the only original.

Fifth, 'fair use' provisions of copyright law are vague to such an extent that most law-abiding users become so timid that they don't use the law to the extent which they could for fear of prosecution. You see this all too often in Wikipedia photographs where copyrighted images have been rendered so small and so low in resolution as to be nigh on useless.

Sixth, attacks on Wikipedia are very understandable and not unexpected. Any public library that gives such ready/easy access to vast amounts of ever-growing, encyclopaedic knowledge is clearly a threat to copyright holders. Consider Wiki 30-50 years hence, its vast collection of public-domain knowledge with all its nuances, insights and references will be so huge as to be almost unrecognisable by today's standards, clearly poses a serious threat to potential copyright holders who don't have truly original ideas and who only want to regurgitate ideas in a slightly different form. Wiki, if not already, will eventually expose such obfuscation by any would be copyrighter who wishes to steal from the public domain, especially when cleaver AI monitoring will be able to detect even the slightest deception.

I could go on but Rob Levine's comments only convince me more than ever that there MUST be a radical rethink of copyright/IP law to the extent where the 126-year old Berne Convention will probably have to be dismantled and then rebuilt with 21st Century values at its core. ACTA, SOPA and the IPO are all built on Berne's foundations and thus would have to follow suit.

Sounds dramatic, but a decade or two ago no one would ever have conceived that anything like the shutdown demos over SOPA would have been possible. Once change starts it's difficult to stop. Anyone who remembers the worldwide anti-Vietnam war demos will tell you that initially there was either acceptance or acquiescence amongst the populace and then how quickly that changed into violent opposition which essentially ended the war. So too it will happen here with copyright, although expect the entrenched Copyright Industry to fight like the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge: viciously and ferociously to the bitter end with every weapon they can muster but nevertheless still in retreat.

One thing is just about certain, in another 126 years the Berne Convention or its replacement won't vaguely resemble the form it takes today.

Telstra tips assets into NBN Co

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

@D.M. -- Re: Don't blame the current gov. I did say 'both'!

Actually, I did say 'both':

"As both sides of government have been responsible for this opportunistic money-grab,..."

...But you're almost certainly correct, the Libs will sell of the NBN. Irrespective of its worth to Australia as a utility, it'll be sold off to those large corporate telcos that have a vested interest. By owning the NBN telcos will be in a position to double-dip on communications charges. They'll profit on both line costs as well as normal telco charges.

BTW, I've NEVER seen any proposal which shows or adequately demonstrates that it's better for consumers or the national interest than one in which the NBN is owned by a revenue-neutral corporation consisting of 51% government, 49% telco shareholding. In a fair system it's a win-win for both the consumer and telcos. Being revenue-neutral, line costs to telcos are (a) the minimum that can be charged after maintenance and development, and (b) all comers, new and future telcos/users, will get access to lines at the same rates as existing telcos. (This was never so with Telstra, it had an unfair advantage by both owning and using the lines/cableways itself, yet it was also the wholesaler of these lines to other telcos. Not only is this a farce but also it was and still is unfair on the competition, and ultimately consumers are forced to pay extra.)

Moreover, it's in the interest of the telcos to ensure the NBN (which really is a line and cableways authority and ought to be called such) runs efficiently and at minimal cost. Government with its 51% holding ensures consumers are represented and the telcos with their 49% will almost guarantee that government won't fuck it up as it does with so many things it fully controls--just imagine the telcos' noise if government stuffed it!

Nevertheless, such an authority is extremely unlikely, instead we'll end up with a for-profit corporation that's wholly owned by the telcos alone (this of course is their preferred option other than say Telstra's preferred one--65% Telstra, 35% other telcos or such, with the 35% sliding over time as Telstra buys the others out). It's hard to believe this won't happen so powerful the telco lobbying (especially Telstra) upon weak, money-hungry, corruptible government.

If anyone has a proposal for another scheme that would be better for consumers than this one then let's hear it.

The NBN ought to be a national symbol of pride as utilities once were. I recently heard it aptly put that 'in the Victorian era both governments and citizens had almost a fetish with public works that would benefit the nation and built them to last generations'. For instance, look at railway infrastructure, it was so well built we're still using it 150 years later hardly unchanged.

Alas, that was in an era when pride in one's nation and nation-building were more important than just mere profit alone.

Graham Wilson
Mushroom

It's still a sham.

Telstra should never have been sold off with the cables and cable right-of-ways. The cableway network should have remained separate thus giving all competition fair and equal access to the distribution system.

1. Building unnecessary parallel cableway networks across Australia has cost the Australian people dearly.

2. $11 billion is a half-baked and desperate attempt by the government to buy back the problem which should never have occurred in the first place.

3. That Telstra be allowed anywhere near the NBN is a continuation of this almighty fuckup (and it further obfuscates the original reasons behind the disaster).

4. That the NBN will ultimately be sold off instead of it remaining a revenue-neutral authority owned by a 51-49% government-telco shareholding will further add very substantially to communications cost within Australia.

5. As both sides of government have been responsible for this opportunistic money-grab, no one has ever been held to account. We need nothing less than a Royal Commission to investigate, but it'll never happen whilst Dracula remains in charge of the blood bank.

When the government sold off Telstra lock, stock and barrel with the cableway network it committed treason against its people. Unfortunately, when Anglophone governments commit treason, people are no longer prepared to riot in the streets.

Au revoir democracy.

SUNKEN LINER Titanic iceberg riddle answer FOUND ON MOON

Graham Wilson

Re: Common misconceptions

"The Titanic was never designed to be that fast, and on her only voyage "only" managed 22.5 knots"

I don't think this is relevant, the zeitgeist of the time was very much the 'fastest to NY vice versa' in the same way that today the fastest jet service or fastest internet connection is. It would be truly amazing if Capt. Smith didn't have this in mind when he failed to slow the ship down after heeding multiple warnings.

Graham Wilson
Unhappy

@Elmer Phud -- Chances aside, ultimately responsibility rests with Capt. Smith.

Chances aside, after receiving radio warnings that icebergs were in the area, ultimately Captain Edward Smith was responsible for the sinking and loss of life by not slowing the ship down.

Also, partly responsible was the White Star Line for its silly competitive nature of trying to make its ships reach New York in record time--safety became second.

Third in line were the ship's designers (and probably regulators, those certifying etc.) for the inadequate design of the ship's watertight compartments (and also the lack of lifeboats). They're third on the list as Titanic was breaking new ground and to some extent these parameters were not fully understood.

*

*

*

Absolutely lastly responsible was any variation in natural occurrences. Chance should never have been given its opportunity.

Tevatron refines Higgs boson picture

Graham Wilson
Thumb Up

Some irony if Tevatron takes credit.

It would be somewhat ironic if Tevatron ultimately took the credit for finding Higgs.

The fact that Tevatron's data is still being massaged months after its closure is testament to the difficulty of the problem.

Workers can't escape Windows 8 Metro - Microsoft COO

Graham Wilson
Flame

@preppy -- Re: Deja Vu

Correct, seems to me these designers can only cope with one UI paradigm at a time.

Seeing they're all more addicted to their iPhones/smartphones than their desktops (desktop PC UIs being passé), the solution is to clone 'the slab's' UI onto the desktop!

Metro breakdown! Windows 8 UI is little gain for lots of pain

Graham Wilson
Happy

@ Charles9 -- Re: I'll go you one better.

Exactly, then users would have full control.

All we have to is publicize the idea and hope for a philanthropist!

:-)

Mammoths, sabre-tooths MURDERED by second giant space boulder

Graham Wilson
Coat

@ Version 1.0 -- Re: We're next --- Hey??

Hey Version 1.0, not left yet?

Be reasonable, tell us all how you got access to the Tardis/Enterprise.

We'll probably join you.

Pandora may open its box downunder

Graham Wilson
Flame

In a broadcasting climate of utter mediocrity, that's a certainty.

"We believe it’s only a matter of time before the internet has a negative impact on traditional radio listenership … and thereafter radio asset values in Australia too,”

...Only a matter of time? Must have started by now, I've cut down my traditional broadcast radio listening to less than a quarter of what it was 5 years ago and I'll bet I'm certainly not the first to do so.

National broadcasters, BBC, ABC etc., are now little more than bastions of political correctness--they're so bad I cringe when I listen to them; and commercial radio offers nothing but lowest-common-denominator sport, cretinous talk-back or politically-motivated commentards etc.--it's just dreadful.

In a climate of utter mediocrity, it seems logical that one would 'dial-your-own' if one could do so.

Trouble is 'narrowcasting' in any form/medium is not necessarily a good idea as one takes the easy option of one's interests instead of the broader whole. Ideally, broadcasting would be fixed, but there's a snowball's chance of that ever happening.