Re: Surely this is criminal behaviour
> It's high time that manufacturers were held accountable for the security holes that they *deliberately place* in their products.
There, FTFY. :D
2215 posts • joined 18 Aug 2008
> It's high time that manufacturers were held accountable for the security holes that they *deliberately place* in their products.
There, FTFY. :D
Apparently, yes. :S
TfL really are that stupid.
> "Frankly we were puzzled as to why TfL are introducing laws explicitly designed to damage our business model and make customers wait an artificially long time for their ride so that traditional taxis don't seem so God awful", Uber’s UK head of policy Andrew Byrne told MPs today.
> But this is exactly how road transport, and later air transport, finally took off (if you'll excuse the pun).
I watched the video and started to feel myself getting excited.
Not that I would be into a trip like that even if I did have the money.
But what with all the other lousy shit going on in the world at the moment, it's nice to get excited about something that is a little more forward-looking.
If we pumped as much money into investigating what we might do in the event of significant warming to take advantage of it rather than assuming everything is going to go to shit, then things might not turn out as bad as the doom-mongers would have us believe.
But this is heretical talk.
All this talk of just reducing carbon emissions given what we know about industrialisation is burying our heads in the sand.
Adaptability (an no, Mr Vogon, that doesn't mean we all need to develop gills: that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and technology is what will mitigate the effects of warming in the medium term.
As far as I can tell, nobody is actually thinking publicly about this. If they are, they're getting drowned out by the warmist hysteria.
- If some areas are getting warmer, are there better crops that farmers should turn to. If so, which and where?
- If some places are going to be getting a lot more sun, can we take energy advantage of that?
- If some areas are going to have problems with water, can we plan to do something about it now? Why are they not trying to solve this problem in California now and I mean desalination, not building more reservoirs, with all the extra energy from warming? It's not like they don't get a ton of sun right?
> Tesla's stock price fell significantly as the recall was announced
Jesus, trigger finger much?
> If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents – whether it's at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airline – that is a big problem.
What a f*cking moron.
Why are these people running our countries?
In what way, exactly, does strong encryption allow people to behead children? In what way does weak encryption prevent it?
The logical disconnect between the ears of these people beggars belief.
> My best buddy is a serving police officer. He's always been very clear about his colleagues - they are a cross section of society like everyone else. Some are smart, some are not. Some are kind, some are not. Some are honest, and some are not.
I know what you mean. I have a close relative who is a police officer.
My comments were really aimed at the "police" as an organisation rather than individual officers.
Organisational psychology can pervert the morals of the staunchest moralist given half the chance.
That's why we need the police to know exactly where they stand as to what is right and what is wrong, what they can do, and what they absolutely shouldn't under any circumstances.
We should also, as a public, stop blaming the police when they don't have psychic skills when detecting crime. As someone else said in another thread: detecting crime is "supposed" to be hard. If it wasn't, we would live in a totalitarian state.
> Why would you do to hear ...
> And BTW, it is 'free rein'.
Ah, sorry your right. I should of used rein.
> However, of the two reported incidents following on from the changes in which no judicial approval was sought,...
Presumably because they knew that the judge would tell them to f*ck off.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by these incidents. If you give Police free reign to go behind the backs of independent scrutiny, then some, not all, will take advantage. Why wouldn't they?
> into how multinationals are picking the pockets of G20 nations.
Sorry, I thought this story was about corporations not paying tax. I didn't realise that they were actually stealing money from governments.
Isn't that against the law in most places?
There's always a silver lining to this kind of story.
Withstanding a determined attack of this nature, and being able to declare that nothing was stolen, and returning able to claim that service is back up despite the ongoing onslaught has got to have a positive effect on their credibility.
>No, we only THINK we understand the human brain
I don't mean to claim that we have an in depth knowledge of the mechanics of the brain but there is no mystery as to why religious conflicts occur. You say that we don't understand psychos but religious people are not mad. They are sane ordinary people that (in my view) have been misled. Real psychos are responsible for very few deaths. If we only had to worry about the insane, we would be in a very good place indeed.
I see the icon so I guess you're only semi-serious, but let's address those points:
> First, the human mind is too malleable to understand; perfect, upstanding citizen one day, total psycho the next, and no one really knows why, let alone see the warning signs until after the fact.
Actually, it is fairly well understood and our understanding is improving all the time.
We do have a fairly good understanding of the factors that lead to why people do such things. We do, in fact, fully understand why individuals get indoctrinated into religious dogma as young children, why they invest in it emotionally through their life, how it is reinforced by their cultural peers, then hold onto it (in many cases until death) since their entire world view is based on it. There is no mystery here. Secondly to that point, it is very rare for someone to suddenly "go psycho". In nearly all cases, the signs were there to see, if anyone was particularly interested to see it.
>Second, you are incapable of living if you're killed; murder is the one crime where the ONLY effective solution is prevention.
So how do you solve this dilemma? How do you prevent a crime that has not yet been committed?
There is no crime until the crime has been committed. To be arrested for the intent is thought-crime. Someone may intend to commit murder then change their mind. Where do you draw the line? We do have laws that push the boundary of this principal: all charges that start "conspiracy to ..." are just such laws. However, as soon as the perpetrator takes physical steps that are unambiguously related to the act of murder or fraud or whatever, then it stops being thought-crime. Therein however lies the danger.
All we can realistically do is to understand why people commit such acts and takes steps to avoid those circumstances.
- For crimes of passion, recognise the signs.
- For religiously motivated crimes, promote rational thought, real education for all, teach logic in schools, publicly vilify idiotic thinking wherever we see it, stopping telling others that faith is noble and declare it the stupidity for what it is, stop tip-toeing around religious criticism.
There really are many things that we can do to make the world a safer and more peaceable place that don't involve a paranoid government watching everyone. We just need to do them and unfortunately many of them involve us being an awful lot braver than we currently are.
> When it comes to surveillance, what do you want us to do and what risks are you willing to take on?"
Well here are a few things to be going on with:
- Don't monitor everyone: in a free society you must assume that everyone is innocent.
- We don't expect you to be mind readers. We expect you to detect crime after it has happened, not try to predict it Minority Report style.
- You must accept that in a free society, free people will do bad things sometimes. Live with it. The best we can do is understand why people do bad things, and learn from it.
None of these things should be a surprise to anyone, but it is good to have it said every now and again.
Governments, they can all fuck themselves.
> Why ?? FFS, why ?
An awful lot of the legacy uses for OS/2 are on embedded systems.
Used to see a lot of photo finishing equipment running OS/2, it was pretty much an industry standard.
Not a great example I know, what with the collapse of the photo finishing industry but you get what I mean :D
> My prediction is that "driverless" cars will actually appear as a set of safety improvements.
A Google engineer gave a talk about this specific issue.
In their view, there was a very large gap between the capabilities of cars with driver assist technologies and autonomous vehicles and I have to agree with them.
Drivers become lazier and less attentive the more that the vehicle does for them to the extent that, although they are still technically in control, they are not really driving the car in an active sense.
I think that situation is particularly dangerous.
You can only go so far with assist technologies. Any further and they become counter productive.
Isn't judicial oversight supposed to come first? I thought we sorted these things out a couple of centuries ago.
Maybe not legally, but it is making a very big policy statement.
This is a political move rather than a legal move, paving the way for future dealings with the US.
> And presumably "Brains" now gets to spend every single day off work?
And likely will never work again.
Would you hire him?
I'm a bit mystified about what Cameron was originally proposing.
So, if I use strong encryption in Internet traffic or on my disk drives, they're seriously proposing to throw me in jail? Seriously? Is that what this guy had in mind?
Nice to see a lady doing this kind of work in an area that still seems to an outsider very male dominated.
Here in Canada, they don't understand my deliberate mis-pronunciation of "duffnuts".
Given that in the US they are pushing through a law allowing companies to feed their Personal Data to government agencies in exchange from immunity from prosecution, I'm not sure why this person thinks that the US and EU are close in terms of their data protection attitudes.
It seems to me that they're diverging more and more as time goes by.
She's right about one thing though: in the US, they are becoming more brazen and up-front about the fact that they want everyone's data to look at. In the words of the great Christopher Hitchens, it is "progress of a sort".
In Nazi Germany and communist Russia, people were encouraged to shop their neighbours to the government. I see the US government sees some merit in this idea.
Jesus, I'm glad I don't live there, and they think this kind of thing will endear them to the EU for safe harbour. Don't hold your breath.
> You need to get out more, become less of a "victim" and try to stop blaming the US for all your problems.
OK, I think my point went whizzing right over your head.
Right, you say all drug companies are bastards. I can get behind that. US drug companies just happen to be the largest, and therefore the biggest bastards of them all. It's not really the point though is it?
Leaving society's best interests in the hands of obscenely wealthy corporations for the advancement of core medical science is quite frankly irresponsible for any country.
This kind of stuff used to be done by the universities funded by government. These days they only seem to be interested in "climate stuff".
You only need to look at drug companies in the US and their subsequent extortion of the rest of the world to see why leaving basic r&d to the public sector is killing our society with a rot which I fear we will never cure.
You're kinka missing the bigger point. Organisations want to get off lock-in, not Microsoft products per se.
The real evil here are not Microsoft products but a lack any kind of compatibility between competing products.
If Microsoft really do offer the superior alternative and the price makes sense then I have no particular objection to its use
> Dyson claims the Bosch and Siemens cleaners use a sensor to detect when the vacuum is drawing air from a clean surface and when it is pulling in dirt. The sensor then adjusts the power intake of the motor, increasing the power the vacuum uses when cleaning a dirty floor.
Erm hang on. Isn't this a good feature? If the vac doesn't need to work hard, isn't it reasonable to expect it to reduce its power consumption?
It's one thing to accuse a company of deliberately rigging their products to fudge a test but it seems a bit ridiculous to berate a company for producing a product that reduces its consumption when not under load.
It seems to me that the test needs to be updated.
If my understanding is correct, this restriction only applies if you want to use the name Android.
You can do whatever you like if you call it something else.
Can anyone confirm or refute this?
> this is an example of the courts always siding with the powerful at the expense of the community.
I think you'll find that they are siding with Google at the expense of big publishers.
Very few authors have any skin in this game.
"The community" would be quite happy to have much more access to literature.
> Fair use in this case is being stretched quite a bit.
Well the court disagrees. You are either on the right side of the law or you're not. There is no in-between.
Reminds me of some quotations from a UK politician (I forget who) suggesting that people that drive "at the speed limit" are skirting the law. Comments like that are dangerous, slippery slopes to be going down.
Which is exactly my original point.
If Google is offering an index service that leads to more sales for publishers or authors then all this bleating about technicalities is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot to defend your right to do so.
Other argument like "well Google is making money from doing this" is just so unbelievably sour grapes.
> How does the author or their estate get paid when they don't know that a book sale had occurred? Remember that Google is digitizing out of print books that were 'orphaned' even though they still had active copyrights in place.
That's a very good question: How does an author get paid if the work is orphaned?
If the book is not orphaned, then you would have to buy the book through a legitimate channel which should hopefully reward the author or publisher.
> I can think of half a dozen ways they can make money even if they allow access for free.
That's nothing wrong with making money.
If they are not selling the book, rather a search service, then I don't see the ethical issue surrounding this. If however, their service means that people who would buy the book now need not because of the service, I can see why there would be issues.
Putting aside the technical legal aspects of this case, you can't help wondering why publishers would want to spurn something that could lead to an increase in sales for their books through legitimate channels.
Lawyers have a habit of biting onto the minutiae of legal niceties and missing the bigger business picture.
I must admit that I'm with Google on this one.
There comes a point where these kinds of driver assistance aids become dangers in their own right particularly if they encourage drivers to lose their concentration.
As far as I'm concerned, you are driving the car or you're not. Anything in between is just asking for trouble.
> “Scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history”
I think that a lot of people out there conflate "science" (as the sceptical pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and a well defined method to achieve it) and "technology".
The two are related but it is reasonable to investigate both the metaphysical claims of religion and moral/ethical issues with reasoned thought. Isn't that what philosophy is all about?
Indeed. Mega fast main storage is going to be an enabler of so many technologies.
AI is going to be increasing a real thing in most people's lives. We've already seen medical diagnosis.
Robotics is going to be a *huge* industry which is why so many tech companies are interested in it.
The real kicker will be when innovation come mostly from the technology that we're producing.
At that point, it will become an automatic accelerating cycle.
I don't remember where or when I saw it, but there was an article I read somewhere about circuit design by automated methods trying out thousands of possible designs to come up with new and inventive circuit possibilities that no-one would ever think of by the normal imaginative and innovative methods that we normally use. I do remember a comment from the researchers about them not being particularly sure why some of those generated designs worked in the way that they did.
When our technology transcends our own understanding, then we will become the servants and the technology will become the master.
Obsolescence by design built into software.
I really do worry about how our future generations are going to handle the fact that a larger and larger part of our common culture is being programmed to self destruct after a limited time.
This kind of thing might appeal to bean counters but with DRM, and software/games/books etc requiring online verification to even work or time limited self-destruct, is slowly destroying any kind of cultural legacy that our children and grandchildren might inherit.
> Secondly, is there the option of hosting the node but only allowing the exit to see the library hosted content?
To be honest, despite the downvotes, this is a serious question.
I know censorship is a bad thing, but if you're hosting a Tor exit node, there are some reasonable precautions that you could take against the obvious problems of underage porn trafficing and suchlike.
Perhaps they could whitelist the kinds of sites that dissidents might be interested in, information sites like Wikipedia, YouTube, the kinds of things that are regularly cracked down by foreign dissent-hating governments.
> After meeting with the plod, however, the librarians have taken the box offline over fears it was being used for criminal activity.
So, wait a minute.
Plod visits the library and warns them off that their exit node *might* be used for crime and suggests that they shut it down and the library meekly complies.
Perhaps they should lock the doors as well because criminals might decide to meet in the library building.
Perhaps they should shut down all their community PCs because criminals might use them for criminal purposes.
> If the US Justice Department had followed correct procedure and asked the US government to ask the Irish government for access to the data, as per the existing agreements, then all would have been well.
Not only that, they'd probably have the data by now as well.
Makes you wonder what this is really all about....
> Then show me the stable, maintained Linux versions.
You make some good points.
But here's the rub: in open/free source land, you only need to write them once and then they're available to everyone.
Once you've gone down that road, there's no turning back to proprietary software,
And not one mention of the word "theft".
I applaud you El Reg!
Not sure why Netflix would give a shit.
If their service is provided outside Australia, then why wouldn't they just tell the Aussie government to spin on it?
It's not like they have any physical goods that customs could take a look at.
> The entire terrifying event was captured on video. Be warned: it is not for the faint-hearted.
Which has very quickly been blocked by the "US Tennis Association."
Update: available here (for the moment) for your viewing pleasure.
> 16 Does
Can someone clarify what this means?
Do these people have deer DNA or is the term some kind derivation of the "John" meme in prostitution?
> Shall we try a completely open borders policy then?
You *could* argue that the problems that we're facing now are ultimately because we have borders.
And so it begins.
If you use encryption, you must be a terrorist.
It's not as though this wasn't predicted.