2033 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
A stitch in time
> Ofcom has nearly every new regulation challenged, often on legal technicalities
Doesn't that just mean that Ofcom employs crap lawyers - who don't know how to draft regulations that are actually legal?
Instead of Ofcom bleating about the naughty telcos who spot the holes, which they should have spotted earlier and then use those flaws to delay the introduction of new rules that would benefit the public to the telcos' detriment (I bet they don't challenge anything that is good for them), why not actually get someone competent to look over the proposed rules before they are enacted?
For Apple, mood sensing is pretty easy.
When you first buy the product: Joy
When you first try to use it: Confusion
When you show it to all your friends: Pride
When you get the first monthly bill: Horror
When it breaks: Depression
When you try to get it fixed: Annoyance
When the next version comes out, 6 months after you bought the "latest": Anger
Avoid the commodity
> Does IBM know something we don’t about the future of low-end x86 servers
In the early 90's I worked for IBM. Even then, the view was that they weren't a hardware company, but knew that the "future" was in services. They also knew that the profitable work was at the leading edge, not in the box-shifting, mass-market.
What IBM is good at (and their longevity, albeit with many up's and down's does support their view) is innovating, productising and doing stuff that other companies can't / won't or aren't big enough to. So in that case it's no surprise that businesses they nurtured and grew into successes will get sold off: its their pattern.
As for datacentres and energy. The solution is simple. Once it becomes too expensive for cloud operators to power & cool their datacentres, they'll simply stop doing it. Whether they close down gracefully or just switch off the lights and walk away, one day, will be interesting. However companies that use these services need to always remember that nothing in cloud
cuckoo land is under their control and that this will be their biggest vulnerability.
However, with datacentres using as much power as a aluminium smelter, once electricity becomes too expensive for cloud computing, it will also be too expensive for other essentials. That will have a more far-reaching effect on individuals' lives than where the popups get served from.
Re: A rule of thumb
> This is about how many squabbling there is:
That's a nice chart. It tells us that almost no-one refutes man-made climate change. And I believe it. However the squabbling is not about the fact, but what all those clever people say is:
a) the degree of any problem that MMCC brings
b) the seriousness of it
c) the probability that any given outcome will will come to pass - and when that will be
d) the degree to which I can affect the outcome
e) what lengths (and by lengths, I mean inconvenience) I should be prepared to go to, to affect that outcome
So merely for lots of PhDs to say "yes, mankind is warming the planet" is like people saying "yes, I believe in gravity". It's a recognition of a phenomenon, (possibly even: truth by acclamation) but it's unhelpful in making any judgments about the effect, it's affect, the implications of it and whether I, personally, need to do anything about it. That's what all of us, who don't make a living arguing about it, need to know. So far the range of "solutions" ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous and the rate at which new doom and forebodings, extreme suggestions and changes-of-opinion come along does nothing to increase the credibility of the field, as a whole.
Once that all comes to a consensus, then there will a reason to address the issue. Hopefully it won't take all the squabbling scientists so long to sort themselves out that it'll all be far too late to do anything.
Re: Oh that reminds me...
I think that from a politicians PoV, advice from "experts" is a win-win. If it turns out to be correct information, the politicos will say "yes, we're so enlightened and responsible (and humble) that we recognised the superior knowledge of *our* scientists and due to our expert leadership and vision, everything worked out for the best". If it turns out to be wrong, the reply will be "we listened to these people and felt forced to accept what they told us. However, the fault for the consequences does not lie with us, but with the bad advice we received. We are actively reviewing the situation and learning lessons from it."
So, either way, the people who knew nothing manage to come out clean and shiny.
A rule of thumb
Whether the climate scientists obey the tenets of scientific rigour (objective results, reproducibility, modelling-prediction-observation-refinement) I cannot say: although the amount of sqabbling would suggest there is some doubt.
However, any field that has the word "science" in its title gives me the distinct impression that it adheres to the principle of "truth by acclamation". I.e. say something enough times and it will become the accepted doctrine. That alone is enough for me to group it with all the other subjects that include the word "science" in their title.
More than that, I cannot tell at this point.
Drop in the ocean
> use of water instead of ink in the printer makes it much cheaper overall
Though you just *know* that the printer makers will find a way to screw the price to levels beyond the dreams of avarice - and that you'll only be allowed to use their "special" water, in their proprietary cartridges for the whole thing to work.
Get out the stuffing
... we have a new turkey.
Seriously, an Arduino contender? A rival to the Pi?
Maybe in the minds of the marketing people, but in real-life situations it's seriously lacking in either camp.
It's far too big for use in most Arduino applications. It's power consumption is massive and it's far too complex (if you need all those peripherals: ethernet, micro-SD and what looks like an extremely dodgy sheild interface) then you really shouldn't be trying to do it with an Arduino. Even worse: put having a Linux layer underneath, the board can't even be applied to real-time applications: where you *know* to the microsecond how long a loop will take to execute - and that your I/O will take place now rather than at some point within the next 2mSec.
And compared to a $4 Atmega328, it's not even talking the same language.
As an O/S based solution for grown-up problems, well it has shortcomings there, too. Even the price is above what people expect to pay for a Pi or the more capable BeagleBone - or a $30 Olimex Lime. All of which have more than enough non-volatile memory and maybe even a SATA connector to a SSD for all but the most bloated applications.
If this had come out 5 years ago, it would have taken the embedded world by
storm rain-shower. However, the leading edge is moving apace and in 2014 it looks overpriced, under-spec'd, lacking in features and without the "killer-apps" of a widespread user base of code, libraries and contributed examples to get stuff developed quickly.
Easy come, easy go
> the project was formally cancelled last year at a cost to licence-fee payers of £100m - with nothing to show for it.
And when you get all your budget dropped into your lap, without even having to ask for it, justify what programmes you're going to spend it on, get any kind of outside approval for "pet" projects or be in any doubt that the flow of goodies will ever end - is it any surprise that we get debacles like this? £100 mil? Meh! we get over £3Bn a year, it's no biggie!
If the Beeb had to earn its income: have effort and talent rewarded by more moola and incompetence and indolence punished by a shortfall - with the inevitable belt-tightening that happens in the real world, they would be both incentivised to spend it wisely and have developed the disciplines and processes to ensure that they did so.
As it is, they know that next year they will get the same snowstorm of cash thrust upon them, whether they use it to make world-beating telly (which they do) or blow it on whimsy and inefficient operations (which they also do). Without anyone asking questions (surely the job of the governors - and not just "who'd like another brandy?") and scrutinising their policies, this sort of waste is bound to continue.
19th century principles in a 21st century world
> the lesson of Marx's analysis is that capitalism is a pretty productive system but ...
and it's one hell of a big but (and it does look big, no matter where you look from). Since Marx (1818 - 1883) we have had all sorts of labour reform. Workers have rights, very expensive (if you're an employer) rights and very easily exercised rights, too. At least for those of us on the right side of the pond, these "exploitations" are long-gone. For the high-skilled IT industry: at least in theory and mostly in practice, too (other countries may be lagging a little).
So while we may not get the same levels of remuneration as our colonial cousins, some of that gap is made up by the safety net and protections afforded to employees. Whether people place a value on those (or take them for granted) is a different discussion for another day.
Followed through to the end
> a range of prescription glasses and lenses which can be used with Glass.
So you get your swanky (possibly sans the "s", depending on your view of GG) new specs and wear them while out. Suddenly a plastic piggie in a shopping centre comes up: "Nick-nick. Sorry sir/madam, you can't film in here." At which point you explain, politely, that you aren't filming and that the GG stuff is switched off. PP is adamant that you can't film and that you'll have to remove your specs - GG enabled, or not. At which point you comply and proceed to spend the rest of your shopping trip bumping into things and looking for the local Specsavers.
Repeat in the cinema - as one our our colonial cousins claimed to have done recently with GG enabled spectacles. Repeat again while driving - this time, the (unplastic) police-person has a nice twist. "Sorry sir/madam, you can't wear those while driving. What's that? You don't have a pair of ordinary glasses? Well then you'll have to leave your veHIKle and walk home. Yes I appreciate it's raining and you live 20 miles away. But roolz is roolz (and I am the law until your appeal comes through). You could always call a taxi .... you might even get some change from £50"
Short version: is the hassle involved, and the constant feeling that small children are laughing at you, worth the small and mostly imaginary benefits of owning a device that is frequently banned from use and doesn't really have any benefits over a search engine on a smartphone?
The thinking man's grandma
> Stephen Fry's credentials as a technology guru turn out to be tissue thin
I don't think anyone could accuse SF of being a guru - in anything, let alone a technical topic. Sure, he can read a good autocue (though we will never know how many rehearsals are required to get the version we see on TV). However, his technical reputation stems from the in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king principle and it has been bestowed on him only by those more blatantly ignorant in matters that involve a screwdriver or compiler, than he is himself.
The real tragedy is that all these uncritical, unknowledgable
lemmings followers have the weight of numbers on their side and the press, always being a sucker for mass appeal over accuracy (present company excluded) have elevated him to the position of lord-high priest whenever a pseudo-technical comment is necessary. And being a media tart, he's only too happy to oblige: actual knowledge, facts, sense or experience not being a requirement where public-friendly sound bites are concerned.
The new renaissance
The article boils down to the point that manufacturing always lags demand. Then it overcompensates, floods the market, crashes the price and starts lagging when the next fad arrives. So far, so normal.
What is interesting is the realisation that there is mind-numblingly fast processing power available - with more to come. None of which is encumbered by operating systems (which have been described as a way of slowing down a computer to a manageable speed) and/or the massive overheads of securing the whole mess..
Perhaps, when all the fuss over bitcoin dies down, all this excess power can be harnessed into something useful. My proposals would be proper speaker-independent voice recognition and maybe the ability to do some real-time processing on HD video streams. You know the sort of thing: replace the news-reader's head with a talking cat, remove all their clothes, have yourself playing centre-forward for your favourite football team.
I can see that this could well be the next phase of software development. Let's face it: operating systems have been, essentially, stagnant for the past 20 years (merely adding new polish to the UIs and support for new hardware). Office apps likewise - after formatting and spell checkers, how many features does the average user need, want or use. Games? Well, someone who was frozen in time for the nearly 40 years since Wack-a-Mole would instantly recognize todays FPS games as kin, even if the graphics has changed for the prettier. So maybe all this superfluous computing power can be put to some new and original uses. After all, has anyone ever found a Bitcoin?
He should know
> it also enables people to barricade themselves behind sources of information which only confirm their own wishes and ideas
and no religion would want that, would it?
Who wants a share, now?
Although the means of arriving at the conclusion that Facebook is about to become TitsUp has so many holes in its logic that it's hard to see the connections for all the empty assumptions between them. However if there is any substance to this, then it does look like the timing of the IPO was less than a coincidence.
Hell hath no fury
> enraged they would actually have to fork out cash to see their own desktops from afar
... like a freetard pwned
Instead of a "thank you for all the years of value you've given us for free" the sense of selfish entitlement displayed when a company decides it's not seeing any benefit, was truly remarkable. Sure, Logmein did pull the rug with no useful period of notice, and I do sympathise (being one of their freetards, myself). But surely graceful acceptance of the situation is not beneath most people?
A retailer, not an IT company
Just because an company uses IT, or even relies on it, doesn't necessarily make it an IT company.
That could be said of Amazon. They are primarily a retailer (or cloud computing provider - but let's put that to one side for now) - a shifter of boxes. The cheaper, faster and more efficiently, the better. But it's the boxes that are their business, not the how&why of shifting them.
There was a study done of Amazon's "fulfillment" centre at Rugley, (in England) which concluded that the company's policy of minimum-wage hiring, lack of interest in improving morale towards its staff and hire-em-and-fire-em attitudes mean that it's not making much of a contribution to the local community, and not much of an economic impact to the local economy, either.
it might be that this view is common, not just to considering its employees as commodities, but in its software assets too. That they are merely tools of the trade and not part of its corporate identity: to be loved, nurtured and promoted as a product or as a thing of value, above how they reduce costs and improves efficiency. As such, any discussion, analysis or outside scrutiny of their inner workings would only be sensible if that work made the tools better. Philanthropy is not their job: if there's any "giving back" to be done, it's in the form of lower prices to its customers.
> though there's a good chance of finding a Reg reader almost anywhere there's any IT, including the South Pole
So nobody on the ISS then? Shame.
So basically, it boils down to:
- out with the P languages: Perl, Python and PHP
'nuff said (though I'm still sticking with Perl - and Ruby was never really a contender, anyway)
How big is your pie?
> open up pay TV competition for the benefit of consumers
The problem with competition is the size of the market.
Typically when companies compete, there are a few things that can happen: prices (and by implication: margins) can drop, products and/or efficiency can improve, and more "stuff" gets consumed.
So far as TV viewership is concerned, in the UK it seems to be pretty much at saturation: all the people who want to watch as much TV as they can, or are physically able to, already do so. Making more content available won't do a great deal to get more eyeballs staring at the goggle-box for more hours on more days.
Since the total size of the potential market has already been reached, all that increased competition (or "choice" if you're a politician) will do is to make each company's slice of the market smaller.
How could TV be made cheaper? Well, in the UK the licence
tax fee is independent on the amount of competition. It might be possible for a new player to put pressure on Sky to reduce their subscriptions, but more channels would increase the number of advertising minutes available, which would drive down rates and therefore lower advertising income - so no benefit there (not even to advertisers, who'd have to pay for more ads to reach the same number of millions of viewers).
As for improving the product - yeah, that happens! [ errr, no it doesn't ] When TV companies have less income, they make cheaper programmes: reality, game shows, chat shows and cut the expensive "quality" programming and the niche/specialised programmes that attract few viewers. They also show more repeats. However, with some channels on Sky already showing only three or four hours of original (i.e. never seen before on UK TV) content per week, there's not much scope for that, either.
So what would more TV competition look like? Just more repeats, more advertisements, more imported programmes. more celebs and reality and the same number of viewers grumbling that "there's never anything to watch". Oh, and the BBC - still with its protected £ billions, making programmes without the encumbrance of advertising (or much in the way of transparency or oversight - who decides if they screen yet more celebs & dancing, anyway?) and squashing the prospect of the independents making money by competing with them given their enormous (unearned) income. It would be interesting to see how that sits with pan-european TV competition.
> if I live in Belgium and want to subscribe to a Spanish Pay TV service,
Which is the exact situation that british ex-pats find themselves in (though not to watch spanish TV - if you've ever seen it, you'll know why). At present a lot of them have honkin' great satellite dishes parked near their houses just to pull in Sky or the Beeb - though this is contrary to the providers terms of service.
Sky's "solution" to this is to configure their newest satellite to only broadcast their UK service to a more tightly focused region, with less "overspill" into other countries where naughty brits won't get a strong enough signal. Even if the european skies are opened up, tbroadcasters will be under no obligation to actually broadcast into other european countries. Thus any finding by the EU will be irrelevant.
Re: "it needed to be sufficiently innocuous for in-flight use"
> the insides look enough like a home made bomb
Nah. The highly skilled and extremely motivated folks at the TSA are all fully aware that *any* bomb has curly wires leading to the explosives and a red LED count-down display.
The "heavily regulated systems for licensing and managing taxis" was obviously set up with the best intentions of customer safety and fairness in mind. However, it's easy for such a system (I wonder if it bars people from becoming taxi drivers if they have a criminal record. For, say, causing damage to a competitor's vehicle?) with a high barrier to entry, to become devoid of competition and for the scarcity of qualified operators to reduce the levels of service, timeliness and customer convenience.
Maybe what Uber illustrates, due to its popularity, is that the restricted licensing of parisian cabbies has been overdone. Rules that were set up in the prehistoric times, before the internet, may need adjustments and the market opened up so that the number of "legitimate" taxis can grow to fulfill the demand - and introduce some competitiveness to keep prices reasonable.
> Obviously, you've never worked in logistics
Yes, I haven't (?)
Which means I start with no preconceived ideas - just a knowledge of what one customer wants - and some of the possible benefits to any business bold enough to break out of the norm.
Delivering outside of business hours, with no rush-hours, some lifted parking restrictions, no getting caught up in the school run. Being able to get more than 8 or 10 productive hours a day (and more than 5 productive days a week) out of your vans, offices and warehouse. Having access to a large pool of workers who have finished their day jobs and want to earn some extra: either delivering, sorting or doing the paperwork (maybe even keeping the websites up to date?). Offering the retailers extra options for "out of hours" collections - overnight, even. Increased volumes from more customer-friendly services, the ability to expand the business and take pick-ups from householders, too.
Imagine how much better it could be
> One of the key things that marked retailers out were those using multiple ways to get stuff into people's hands
If there were any courier companies, any at all, that had the slightest clue about how to deliver goods to households, at times that were convenient to the receivers - not based around the hours that the couriers preferred to work?
How radical it would be if they delivered in the evenings - just like your local pizza outfit manages. And 7 days a week, too! Or even if you could specify when you'd like your deliveries to arrive, or simply book a slot.
We know all this is possible, supermarkets manage their own deliveries for the convenience of their customers (even if the stuff that turns up isn't always what you ordered). However the "last mile" deliveries are all stuck in the 1980s: when couriers were business to business operations and 9-5 was all that mattered. If Amazon really wanted to assert their total domination, they'd buy up one of the major courier companies, or extend their distribution operation and do the final stage themselves. Whether by van or by drone.
Talk is cheap
Ever since terrorism hit the news headlines, the security forces, media and some of the more impressionable individuals (not to mention any politician who can get on the bandwagon to further their
media profile patriotic credentials) has been on a hair-trigger. Every little comment, however innocuous is examined for it's threat potential. Every bluffer's threat is taken as a real danger, every sign / portent / suspicious movement causes the panic button to be pressed - repeatedly and every tiny little incident is bigged-up as if the end of the world has just been averted.
However, most of it is complete bull.
So when some little wannabe-hacker asks for help, with a project that nobody has heard of, has no chance of coming to fruition and will be forgotten as soon as their attention flits onto something shiny, the circus grinds into action. Especially those outfits that can leverage the "event" for their own gain (and our increased levels of fear). Therefore it's refreshing to hear two such organisations characterise this as:
> intangible and overhyped.
Which, for a business sector that makes every molehill (real or imagined) into a mountain of FUD, must mean that the whole thing is of so little consequence that even they can't spin it into a criminal mastermind plotting the next global crisis.
Maybe there is some common sense out there.
When will *I* buy a 4K TV
Choose any of:
1 - When there is sufficient content that I want which is exclusively available in 4k definition. Let's say: every film release for the previous 5 years.
2 - When I need a new TV and the price of a 4k set is within 25% of a standard (2k) HDMI for the same screen size
3 - There is some killer tech / app that won't work with my existing 2K technology
4 - When I lose all sense of proportion and get caught up in the hype
5 - When 8k comes out and 4k sets are on sale and I need to replace a 2k set
Personally, I reckon that with the exception of (3) - which will never happen - these are in approximate chronological order. So the clock will start ticking as soon as all major films stop being released in 1920x1080 format. Which is probably a long, long way away.
> Mechanical interface and electrical interface are two different things
Spot on. Having an SD interface only makes sense (but given how flimsy & unreliable they are, not much sense) if the plan was to make these SoC's swapable, or interchangeable. With an embedded or wearable IoT there would be no reason or need to make the "brains" removable. It might need to be inserted into its gizmo once, during assembly but after that I foresee its closest neighbour being a large dob of hot melt glue.
My assumption is that the SD card format is merely used for the prototype to give journalists a sense of size and "ubiquity". I.e. to illustrate how it can be inserted anywhere (!) that an SD card would fit.
A dying breed
In practice, defamation (and libel) laws are pointless - unless you have millions to chuck about and actively want the publicity of taking a newspaper to court. For most published material, the internet is all that matters. In that case, a person only needs to get a lawyer to write a letter to the website's hoster and pretty much any article will be off the site, pronto.
Re: All it needed
> Award yourself beer.
krrrrrck, shhhhhhhh, glug
All it needed ...
> police, firefighters, paramedics, SES (State Emergency Service)" and a Search and Rescue Squad from nearby Shepparton enthusiastically responded.
... was a spin-doctor
A good match
Blackberry and Alicia Keys.
Both are names I know. Though the only AK song I could strain to think of (maybe blokes aren't her audience?) was Black Velvet - though it turns out that was done by Alanna Myles, not AK.
So, like Blackberry, the name is familar but the product remains a mystery. Possibly due to better marketing than content.
I wonder whether RIM will approach Ozzy as a replacement?
Re: The law is not the answer
> I think you're struggling with the concept here a bit because you don't actually know what property rights you have today.
A fair point.
The difficulty is: knowing which of the outfits that you allowed access to your privates, did the dirty on you. For example, say I received a dozen of more spams saying "Happy birthday Pete 2, not that you're getting on a bit, would you like to take out our special old-people's life insurance. If you apply today, we'll send you a free bus-pass holder".
Now there would probably be many organisations that have either been given my date of birth, or that could have inferred it. For example: Amazon getting lots of gift-wrapped orders (I wish) to my name and address. Unlike the example of the Daily Wail using my photograph, I wouldn't necessarily know who had leaked my personal data.
There is also the issue of scalability. Even if there was a route to cheap justice and a swift judgment, would that process still work when every citizen had several outstanding claims against multiple infringers: each of whom was located in a different country and had an interest in having the proceedings held in their own home country. I can see a situation where the legal process might only take 5 minutes, but there is a 6 month wait for your 5 minutes.
The law is not the answer
> Then we can begin to assert that we own everything we produce, extending copyright rights and practice to our own data.
Having "rights" is fine and dandy ... if you are a law student making an argument in some ivory tower. However when an average guy on (maybe) $50,000 a year tries to assert those rights, up against the corporate might of a $100Bn corporation, there isn't even a smear left on the tracks of the juggernaut that rolls over him.
Recourse to the law is only practical when it is affordable (without ruining either side: win or lose) and there is some degree of symmetry between the means of the parties involved.
So how would an average guy "defend" his rights to his data? The answer is that he can't. Nobody can. As software companies learned with software piracy: once it's out there, you can't stop it. The only way to restrict the proliferation of personal data is to stop it getting "free". One model would be for all personal data to only be available through some sort of personal server (real or virtual) that required specific, tailored access to be granted on a case-by-case basis, by the individual in question.
The problem is that few would wish to take the time to police their data. We already know that personal privacy comes a long way down the list of most people's priorities - as most (rightly or wrongly) don't consider it to have any value and so far they haven't been proved wrong.
Maybe a better solution would be a way of allowing people to declare tabula rasa every few years. Change their online identity, walk away from all the crap that's been written about, or by, them and stop all those dam' cookies from following them around.
The idea was popular in early Jewish/Christian tradition as Jubilee where slaves were freed, debts wiped clean and sins absolved. Maybe the internet needs the same? Though 50 years could be too long an interval - 6 months might be better.
Re: No better way to destroy a country's IT business
> First, nothing gets extremely smart and creative people excited ...
Very true. Now consider this: There are 300 million americans, 500 million in EU countries and 1.2 .... sorry: 1.3 ... err, 1.35 billion chinese. Maybe at present the balance is tipped in favour of the USA due to its predominance and it's ties with Europe. However, over time it's simply an inevitable matter of numbers that there will be more "extremely smart and creative" people inside China than inside America.
Don't take that as me advocating one side or the other. Just look at the numbers and ask two questions: when will (or did) it happen and what will be (or is) the effect on the west and its ability to out-smart the other guys? I am absolutely convinced that there are high-powered think-tanks working for every major government that are fully engaged on this question, already. I just hope we all manage to come to some sensible conclusions.
Re: No better way to destroy a country's IT business
I'm not concerned about the surveillance issues regarding SWIFT - that boat has sailed. In fact it's over the horizon and out of sight by now. Nor am I going to lose sleep about personal privacy: that boat also gone.
No. The bigger issue is the NSA promises that systems can be hacked "at the speed of light and the implication that the trust we implicitly have in EFT and all other electronic financial tools - even down to reporting share prices - can no longer be guaranteed while the NSA has this capability.
Traditionally, wars have been about physical confrontation and destruction. Whichever side manages to beat the crap out of the other: they're the winner. That has mutated somewhat into an economic war: whichever side manages to get the other's "fiscal nuts" into a vice and turns the handle: they're the winner. The Cold War might well have been the prototype for this sort of conflict - won not by military means, but by out-producing and bankrupting the adversary.
If the financial equivalent of sabotage can be developed and deployed - possibly to make electronic transactions involving "enemy" states or their companies unreliable, corrupted ("why was that transfer declined, there are billions in that account?") or too slow - such as by adding 1 millisecond to share dealings, then that is an effective tool of warfare. Unfortunately, we all then stand the risk of becoming collateral damage in a "clean" war, where victims die from economic malaise in their still-standing homes, rather than a bayonet to the guts in a muddy field, thousands of miles away.
Re: The sheeple are so gullible
> a government agency is more capable of analysing the bugs and finding their root causes than MSFT itself
Is it more likely that the NSA people are smarter than MS's techies - or that MS do the analysis for them and then hand over the vulnerability reports to the NSA (maybe even with worked examples of exploits?) , while holding back on releasing any fixes?
No better way to destroy a country's IT business
If the NSA was planning on actively undermining global confidence in american made, or american owned technology companies, they would probably have a strategy that looked a lot like what they're doing.
So much of our world depends on financial transactions being carried out electronically and all of those transactions are based on the trust we place in the institutions and the infrastructure being incorruptible. What this tells us is that those assumptions are completely wrong.
Leave aside the (relatively minor) issues about personal privacy. I think we all realise that is a lost cause - and was probably always a myth, anyway. But to have one country, and an unaccountable, secret entity within it, that is above (or making) the law able to track, manipulate, corrupt or deny electronic access to funds, destroys the basic foundation of the world-wide commerce system.
However, if someone was able to use that as their USP, saying: "Look. None of our systems were designed by americans. None of them use american parts. There are no americans in our factories, laboratories, sales or support organisations and we can guarantee that these systems use hardware and security algorithms that have never touched the USA, or it's allies, and are physically and electronically tamper-proof" - then you have something that almost no other country or company can sell.
The only question that would remain is who do you trust the least? The americans or whoever offers the alternative.
An even costlier mistake?
Following on the back of the mistakes, bad judgment, double counting and wrong assumptions. The root cause must be the inability of so many (all?) of our law-makers, governors and policy makers to have a grasp of basic arithmetic (not even maths). If they had, surely they could have applied the "sniff test" and come to the conclusion that the numbers this guy was bandying around smelt wrong?
Even if they didn't feel confident in blowing the whistle on the whole thing at that point, surely a quick look around and seeing that nobody else was following the UK's lead, would have been a pretty big clue. But I guess our betters are still in a Charge of the Light Brigade mentality, than able to sit down with a calculator and a small slice of common sense.
Re: Sorry Peter but it would be a bit pointless now.
An even bigger problem than re-opening the enquiry would be tracking down any remains of the cyanide-laced apple. I think this is more a case of a "has-been" gay campaigner grabbing the chance of getting his name back in the media.
Although it is said that he died from eating an apple laced with cyanide, the allegedly fatal apple was never tested for cyanide.
C the point?
> By point 12 it's hard to take things seriously
Bzzzzt! (“Forced program termination is not allowed ... " not exactly pro-choice, is it?)
Failure is on the cards by point #4 (Hence, the language should be English-based) - there's inclusiveness for you
and by point #10: a program rolls for a 40% chance of ... 40% of being ... and 40% of executing by a ... it seems to be suggesting that in the feminist world things have a 120% chance of doing something.
Although the chance of this language being for real is much closer to 0 than to 120%
P.S. At the time of writing (07:50 UK time, the Bitbucket repository has become unavailable. Maybe it's gone on maternity leave? Leaving all the other languages to pick up its work, for no extra rewards.
Not just one
> ... to tell them that the one person who wrote to complain ...
From the article: The concerned telly lover was grumpy
[ feeble joke alert ] So maybe he was writing on behalf of the other 6 dwarfs, as well?
Boat based bonking?
Sounds like an advertisement for a weak beer.
On a roll
So this is how Apple gets to patent the wheel
(I wonder how long it took their marketing department to decide what colour it should be?)
So good, it's bad
> mentored by their under-30 employees
So if these sub-30s are so good at IT and busting with great ideas, why aren't they all starting their own businesses?
Ideas are ten-a-penny. Knowing what's trending on FB is worthless. Having the abilty to pick the winners is one in a million and combining that with the skill, determination and money to turn them into a success is incredibly rare.
It's not the code that matters
> about 0.26 per cent of humanity, can code
But how many can debug?
Why not go the whole hog and turn your entire face into an input device?
Scratching your ear could turn up the volume.
A cough could tweet your location
Picking your nose could act like a mouse click - depending on which nostril you choose
and when someone takes offence and smacks you in the mouth - well, that could be the signal to switch off.
> payday loans firm has received a £175,000 fine
So can they be charged their own rates of interest for every day they're late paying the fine?
The industry's Comet
Distie-hood is no different from being a high-street retailer. If all you're offering is the same stuff that buyers can get online, but cheaper, then you're screwed. And good riddance.
Just because you hide behind a corporate facade doesn't mean you are immune to market forces (or disintermediation, as the effect has been called for at least 25 years) just as your domestic counterparts have already discovered to their cost.
The only companies that haven't cottoned on to the need to add value (or think that having a flashy marketing campaign and a 25% mark-up to pay for it counts as "adding value") are the ones who are either dead, or dying. However, even adding value isn't the same as it used to be. Integrators are finding it tricky, too. Instead of selling individual computers, bundling them together, installing some software and calling it a "system" is also a flawed business model - as so many end-users find that the internet gives them all the knowledge and expertise to do this for themselves.
No competitive disadvantage
> the NSA rifling through service providers' servers was not seen as exacerbating these concerns.
The reason nobody at the top is concerned is because the NSA are shafting every company, equally. It's not as if there is one particular company that is under greater surveillance than any other - the NSA is being (laudably) non-discriminatory over who's privacy they violate. Therefore there's no reason for customers to single out any one company as having more or less of their rights infringed. It doesn't matter where you go, you'll still be spied on.
Of if the NSA is targeting particular organisations, they've done a better job of keeping that fact under wraps.
- Updated + vids WHOA: Get a load of Asteroid DX110 JUST MISSING planet EARTH
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Google! and! Facebook! IDs! face! Yahoo! login! BAN!