Memories are made of this
Sounds promising. Give me a call when it hits $100.
2450 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Sounds promising. Give me a call when it hits $100.
> I suspect they mean 16 PFlops
Yes. Los Alamos have recently ordered an XC40 for a similar amount ($170M).
"The liquid-cooled XC40 offers up to 384 sockets and up to 226 teraflops of performance per cabinet"
> No they don't. Any more than they have to act on warnings that flying unicorns are orbiting the tower.
It's not ignorance or stupidity. It's a simple case of covering your arse and increasing your own importance.
Security, police or practically any institution have nothing to lose by inconveniencing the public, no matter what the pretext. If a flight gets delayed by a security scare, then whoever made that decision does so with impunity. If asked to defend their actions, a reply of "national security" goes unquestioned and frequently praised.
So given that it costs them nothing to take such action, but leads to a shitstorm of apocalyptic proportions if they get it wrong, there is no question which way they will go. If the inconvenience and headlines their action causes can be leveraged to increase
fear awareness which will only ever lead to increased job security, then there's no possible downside. Unless, of course, you're a passenger.
Hopefully this is bigger than just the Pi and shows that all these small, cheap and very capable SBCs are on Moz's radar as being worthy platforms for development. That will give the whole sector a boost - just so long as Moz doesn't become the Gorilla in the room and dominates the entire ecosystem.
If "hacking" really is a greater threat to our national safety, then should it not be an equally serious offence to allow, suffer or permit such security holes to exist?
Using this proposed law as a basis, why don't we disband the british armed services and merely make it a crime for foreigners to invade the UK. That should be enough to stop 'em!
> only a third of those who'd been a victim (32 per cent) actually reported the offence.
A third! That sounds incredibly high.
So far today I've received 2 cold calls and half a dozen attempted frauds to various email addresses. The cold-calls were not from any company I had given my details to and may (or may not) have obtained them legally. The emails that are variants on "here's your invoice for ... " are simply attempts at coning me into sending them money.
To whom should I report all this attempted or suspected criminal behaviour? And are there enough hours in the day to actually do so? More importantly, should I expect anyone to actually do anything (apart from add "1" to the number of variously reported activities) to prevent, reduce or deter these attempts and punish the perpetrators.
My feeling is that attempted cyber-crime has zero status. Even actual fraud is dealt with in a cursory manner and if it was to be treated in the same way as minor infractions in other areas of the law, we'd need every able-bodied person the country recruited into the police force to even start scratching the surface.
> "To be good at Computer Science you need Maths and Physics,"
There may be some correlation between people who choose maths and physics AND like programming. However, they are neither a prerequisite nor a foundation for it.
The main requirement for a programmer is the ability to think in the abstract: a discipline that doesn't seem to be anywhere on the curriculum in schools. A close second, in terms of attributes that indicate good or bad programming ability is an analytic approach to problem solving.
However, it would seem nigh on impossible to teach these in schools, or even exercise them as skills as it would require teaching staff who were similarly "gifted". And those are mental facilities that seem to be rare in schools, difficult to assess or test and not exactly encouraged in teaching staff.
They say that a question well asked is half answered. And so it appears to be.
> "the answer is therefore always in the data"
Now, while the answer might be in the data, whether it is or not will depend on what the question is. If you collect data regarding the size and distribution of pebbles on a beach, that won't provide answers to questions about the price of gold. You have to have the correct data and know what is the right question.
Knowing what the right question actually is, is the most overlooked part of software design. That is what makes it so difficult. Ask one person what it (a new project) should do and you'll get one answer, ask another person and you'll get a different answer. Ask a third and they'll tell you "I can't say: but I'll know it when I see it".
In most cases, the primary goal (no matter what the management team might say) of a piece of software is to meet the expectations of the users. Leaving aside the functional requirements: often the smallest part and the easiest to get right, most users simply want three things - they want the software to be fast, they want it to work intuitively and they want it to be consistent. After that we get down to small matters like producing the correct answer, not requiring an entire datacentre to support a single instance and not taking 20 years to develop.
So far as how that meshes with the "business requirements", so long as the users are happy, the auditors are happy and the budget wasn't exceeded, that is pretty much all you need to count a project as a success, The problem is that hardly any company ever asks the users what they want from a new application and hardly any of the attributes they value are ever measured, or designed in. So we end up with all the correct technical data to design a project, but none of the data necessary to answer the important questions that will define whether it will succeed or not.
> Actually it's not a joke - it's a reference to Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal
Yes. I'm familiar with the quote. However, I've always considered it sarcasm.
The reason is that the code describes what the computer will DO, not necessarily what the coder INTENDED. It also completely fails to assist in indicating what false leads the original implementer tried and discarded, the assumptions or requirements that were in the original design (another part of the documentation) or the reasons for choosing that one particular way of writing the solution. Even then, it doesn't take into account whatever bugs, shortcomings, numerical overflows or timing/race conditions are applied by the hardware, even if the software is algorithmically correct and compiled to a true executable.
> In a meritocracy if your ideas and knowledge are rubbish, then I do not need to have respect for you
It is important to differentiate the person from the product.
One should always respect (or at least: be polite to) others. But that doesn't mean you have to praise, use or accept whatever work they have produced. Most of us would claim respect or admiration for Leonardo da Vinci - even though most of his "designs" were fanciful and impractical, given what we know today.
In the same way, most americans: even ones who dislike the present occupant of The White House would claim respect for the position of President, without necessarily extending that to the person holding that office.
The true mark of a leader is that they can motivate the immature, the insolent, the arrogant and the plain obstinate. Getting intelligent people (those who can see the greater good or the long view) on board is easy. Getting the best out of those who are both gifted AND childish is where a leader's talent shows itself.
> Erm, the code is obvious. Why do that?
I'm assuming you omitted the JOKE icon?
But just in case the question is genuine, it's for the same reason that knowing how a car engine works doesn't give you the ability to drive.
> what's the next step up from a direct talking to?
That's the problem. In the real world it would (ultimately) be termination - not in a kill -9 way, but withdrawal of salary and benefits. However, in the free software world; where contributors are not getting any tangible rewards, there is nothing to threaten them with.
The motivation (the "carrot") is easy: these programmers do it for the recognition and we can see from the obsessive number of hours that some spend writing FOSS that they value this highly - maybe even more than earning a regular salary.
If this is the form that the programmer-figurehead contract takes: you give me working code, I tickle your egotistical tummy, then it's easy to reward good work but difficult to punish the bad without resorting to the only leverage you have: public humiliation. And even that doesn't work when they can just take their project and fork it.
That does seem to me to be the biggest weakness of the whole "free" development model. The contributors cannot be directed to doing things they don't want to do. So while coding is fun and they will willingly do that, debugging is tedious (and intellectually hard) and takes some effort to motivate. Documentation is beyond the capabilities of most FOSS-ers (not meant to rhyme with any pejorative terms) and intuitive UI design is simply impossible for almost any of them to understand the importance of, let alone get right.
> Are you for real? The heat output of any boiler or reactor is the means of making electricity
When you look at how reactors (and the associated power generation) is specified, they usually quote two values: MWt and MWe - one for thermal and one for electrical output.
The 100MW quoted for this (theoretical) device appears to be the thermal output.
This reactor will be small, but it's only one part of a practical power generation system. It appears that the 100MW "power" the article mentions is the heat output - not mains electricity coming out that ordinary people could use.
Apart from this component, a usable generator would still need all the paraphernalia that every power station requires: generation plant, a means to dissipate all the waste heat (even with electricity generation at 50% efficiency, this reactor/generator would have to dump 50MW), safety and control equipment as well as a source of neutrons.
So while this device will be (note the tense!) small-ish at 7m x 10m, it will be still about the same size as the reactors currently fitted in nuclear submarines. The big development is not so much the size of the power plant, but that it doesn't produce weaponisable waste products - though you have to wonder what all those neutrons will do to the heat-conductors inside the thermal blanket and what they'll produce - depending what the blanket is made of.
> "that something that is now fundamental, like the water"
Hmmm, it may be that fundamental to her - the oxygen of publicity and all that, but I think most
sane realistic individuals would disagree.
Though it would be an interesting exercise to consider what an internet that had been developed by women would be like. Would it be any different at all? I doubt it.
> The chariot bits were found buried amid a pile of "burnt cinder and slag"
Archaeologists in 3000 A.D. will, most likely, say the same thing about Teslas
Maybe the horses towing this jalopy suffered a particularly powerful "backfire" just as the driver was lighting up?
> This year the prize goes to something useful in the real world,
Well, useful in that it explains some of our past and current tech-company phenomena. But since it's scope does not include a model or any predictive powers, it is not very helpful in charting the future. Regulating past excesses and abuses is still a wise move, but the technology world is (in)famous for coming up with workarounds for inconvenient consumer protections.
> you could use the camera on cell phones ... [ to use a photograph instead of a password ]
So instead of a baddie having to guess what random or obvious string of letters and numbers you use to gain access to all of your luvverly data, they would now just need a photo of your fizzog? What then - just print it out, life-size, cut off the background, paste it to a stick and hold it up for verification and access. Worse still, what are you supposed to do if there's someone who looks suffciently like you to pass "your" face recognition test - grow a moustache? (and how do you change your face if the security database is hacked?)
In a similar vein, we are also told that more entities are starting to use voice-prints as a means of verifying a person's identity. Pardon my stupidity, but "stealing" that merely involves phoning a person up and getting them to say a pre-set word or phrase, while recording the phone. Sounds even worse!
Thanks, but I'll stick with information that isn't freely available to anyone with a mobile phone - for them to take with neither my permission nor knowledge.
Something like this sounds ideal for an elderly relative: Tesco shopper, BT BB customer (so has access to their national wifi n/w) and currently using a passed-down lappy that is becoming rather too heavy to move around.
Any comments from the octogenarian readership?
> You can probably get some cream for that.
or call in a telephone sanitizer.
> “Hello, is that [x]?”
That seems like a perfectly normal (I use it myself, all the time) initial enquiry.
If the person who picks up the ringing phone and unhelpfully and redundantly just grunts "Hello" without introducing themselves, or identifying who's phone they have answered, or the name of the "desk" you have called, then asking if that is the person who you called is realistic. It should also be the optimal opener, too: since the laws of probability suggest that the person answering [x['s phone would be [x] him/her/it's self.
As far as telephone etiquette is concerned, unless you are staffing the desk at one of the Home or Foreign Office's more discrete centres of operation, then a named introduction is both polite and time-saving for both sides. If you're shy (or running a sales campaign) then it doesn't even have to be your real name - though if you parents passed on their last name of Ferkov you might choose to put some effort into the annunciation - or not.
> the United States has lost pole position in scientific research and its people must refocus
A good start would be to teach actual science in schools, rather than creationism.
> Only arrests will help bring about the serious reduction in spam many dream of.
The way to stop spam is to kill off the botnets. The basic attribute of the criminal mind is the assumption that they won't get caught. No crim. performs a risk-reward assessment before embarking on a course of action. They all assume that the risk of getting nicked is small or insignificant (or that the punishment will be 10 minutes on the "naughty" step). Therefore arresting spammers will only take those individuals off the internet: it won't stop new ones taking their place.
The only way to stop spam as a whole is to deny the spammers access to the millions of machines that send out their content. Without those, they have no practical means of either infecting new machines or or sending out enough messages to make a 1 in a million conversion rate a viable way of turning a profit. If we considered spam like we think of disease, the "treatment" would be to attack the infection, "cure" the machines and ensure they are immune to further attacks. What's the best way to do that? Probably to use a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy and have some very clever people build their own viruses that shut down infected machines and beef-up their security using exactly the same security holes that got them infected in the first place.
There are two things that commentards will not hear a word against: Dr. Who is one.
Maybe to get a bit of Register luvvin' all the Doctor has to do is dump his sonic screwdriver and whip out his Raspberry Pi.
It stands to reason that within the confines of a time machine, the bitty little processor would have an infinite clock speed and due to the Dimensional Transcendentalism of the TARDIS, probably much more memory than appears from the outside. Therefore it would be eminently possible for the pinn-y little thing to solve any problem it was given.
You never know, it might even come up with some better scripts.
> Poeple actually pay this company for it "analysis" of markets
It's my understanding that people (well: high-level management) pay consultants for validation of their preconceived plans rather than to provide direction for their new ones.
> ... parody, a concept which is new to English law
Strange, I had the distinct impression that English law had always been a parody.
> and largely unintelligible
Well, since the author's name is Pauli, you'd expect some exclusion.
> bribes to developers who report flaws including gift cards and tee-shorts which he said worked "shockingly well"
One place I worked, some years ago, had an incentive scheme where each manager had a couple of discretionary "gifts" to dole out every few months. This amounted to a "free" but receipted entry on your expenses for a meal out with a +1 (up to a limit of approx. £50: just above pizzas and a bottle of wine in value). While it was nice to get the recognition it made absolutely no difference to how an individual performed.
>a hall of fame was more important than monetary rewards
A friend is a secondary school teacher. The school has a motivational "star" system with "winners" names going on a board in the entrance lobby. However, it really only works for the 13's and under. After that, awarding a child a star is seen as an egregious insult and is more likely to have the opposite affect to the one intended.
I would suggest that if SignalSciences thinks they are actually altering the behaviour of their employees with such trivia, they are either employing immature developers who are so bereft of love and attention that they could replace their gift certificates with a lollipop and still get the same result, or that their staff scorn their rewards, are intelligent enough to have calculated that they amount to ¢¢¢'s per hour and are actually rewarding themselves in other ways from the company's coffers.
> Now what else could we serve up to a man that handles goats nut on a daily basis..... whilst remaining legal...
Kebab sticks and a book of barbeque recipes?
> UK users price data revealing their sexual orientation to an unfamiliar organisation at £12.82, the study finds
So how many people reading this have ever received a cheque in the post for revealing (or making up, there's no way to tell) any personal information whatsoever? Likewise, whever I fill in an online registration form that asks for anything more than a nickname and a password, I don't hear the kerchinnng of a cash register anywhere in the registration process.
So while the average interviewee in the street might well state this pie-in-the-sky amount when asked a direct question, it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what actually happens to any personal information that floats around on the internet. But then again: neither does that information have anything in common with the person who submitted it.
P.S. Here ya' go El Reg. See how much you can get for this:
Last name: Two
Postcode: PR8 2ZW
Occupation: Goat neuterer (no kidding!)
Income: £50,000 p.a. (mainly backhanders from the goats)
> With the poor quality coding & patching & the likes of the NAS we stand very little chance if any against the hackers
Now that the panic has died down (and all the columnists have run out of ways to describe how
boring outrageous this has all been), the word seems to be that these photos were accessed by people phishing for security information from the celebs in question. On the basis that this is the most likely reason it does seem to point the finger at the individuals' poor security awareness (is that another way of saying: don't bother me with details) rather than inherent flaws in the iCloud security implementation.
Now maybe Apple could have put in place tighter security protocols. But when you have individuals who hand over their own passwords or who choose weak / easily guessed answers, no matter how much you do to "help" them not to, there's always going to be leaks.
> it would be better for eBay and PayPal to operate separately.
I wonder if that's the skeletons in PPs closet.
> We will invite you as soon as we can. Ello is currently in beta, and we are inviting new users in small groups as we roll out new features.
Quite. I have a sneaking suspicion that all the media buzz that this (so far) insignificant little website has generated is merely an excuse for a few journo's to brag that they got invitations before anyone else.
> I think I can detect an instantly perceptible MP3-FLAC difference
Maybe you can - but does it really matter?
Most people I know listen to music as a form of entertainment, generally as relaxation. They don't listen to it on the assumption that they will be tested on it's content and clarity after hearing it. Likewise, they don't listen, eagle-eared. waiting for that instance in the third passage where the conductor's tummy rumbles - or where you can hear the tube train rolling past the recording studio.
Having said that, the first time I plugged in my home-made transmission line speakers (still with me 30+ years later) and cranked up Wish You Were Here it was a bloody revelation. I have witnessed similar reactions when I have plugged in a basic 2+1 speaker system into friends' flat-panel tellies: where did all that sound come from? after listening to tinny audio for an age and not realising there was anything better.
Although those step-changes are huge. Whereas the difference between an average quality MP3 and a FLAC is perceptable - but you're merely detecting the difference, not listening to it. And as soon as someone in the upstairs flat farts, or a car rumbles past, the difference vanishes. As it also does on anything less than my TLs.
> and it would be the basics, around the level of the pension, say £130 a week or so
But then what?
The thing about relative poverty - the thing that all the poverty charities love about it - is that can NEVER be fixed. Why is that "good"? Because it is their raison d'etre and will assure them recognition, moral superiority, political influence and some people a job forever.
But that 130 quid a week isn't just a sign of wealth, it's a sign of national surplus. It shows that we have broken out of the more money == more food == more surviving children cycle. However, there is a downside.
We know implicitly that you don't make everyone richer by doubling everyone's pay. So that suddenly many more people can afford that £90,000 Lexus LS. At that point demand will outstrip supply and all you will have done is stick a rocket up the bum of inflation and soon everyone will be back where they were (including the Lexus owners).
No, if you want to be able to spread the handouts around, the country has to produce more per unit of labour. That was what the industrial revolution with it's harnessing of power sources did for us. Before that the energy available to a worker was their muscle - or their horse's muscle power. After that it has trended towards the infinite.
But we've reached the limit of energy supply. Sure: we can produce more power, but there's a cost. The next step would be to increase efficiency of production: more widgets made per unit of labour. Apart from making us all wealthier, it'll also produce more Lexus's to satisfy the increased demand.
It would also raise the amount available for handouts by more than the rate of monetary inflation. So even those who don't / won't / can't work would still get a pretty nice set of wheels. Even if the roads got so jammed that you'd need a flying car, instead.
But isn't this what happens in every industry? Consolidation.
When cars were new, there were hundreds of manufacturers. Now there are a few. When aircraft stopped being an expensive way to kill yourself and went commercial there were lots of manufacturers. Now there are a few. But in neither case does the reduction in the number of makers lead to a reduction in the number of units made: the opposite is true.
As for New iPhones at last means that Android, Google's smartphone middleware, will soon look attractive only for budget vendors I'm not convinced that the mobile device market splits neatly into "Apple" and "budget" and if Google really want to keep sucking on the data-collection teat, then surely IoT and embedded smart data sources is the direction they should be looking in.
And if they'd been using electronic voting machines the result would be
programmed known before the polls had even opened.
> See, makes sense
Yes, I see the light.
It's not the hacking that's wrong - it's the getting caught.
> These peacetime intrusions into the networks of key defense contractors are more evidence of China's aggressive actions in cyberspace
Because the americans would never dream of trying to gain unauthorised access to another country's military networks!
> The force has also defended the fact that it takes explosives to airports, saying the public was never in danger
Well, no. The chances of there ever being a bomb at an airport is extremely small. The chances of there being two bombs is infinitesimal. Therefore it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports as it vastly reduces the chances of another one being there.
[ 'scuse me while I dig out my copy of Probability for complete idiots ]
Should we now assume that "illegal" downloads of her material are:
a) tracked with an intensity and vigour by every surveillance organisation in the western world
b) laden (bin laden?) with malware, virus and other nasties in the hope some will reach the target audience.
c) still an awful thing to impose on people: no wonder they get radicalised
Oh whoop-de-doo! Bob Shaw's prediction comes one step closer.
Here we have a completely inert device, that is indetectably small and cheap enough to produce by the billion. Let's just wait for a version with a MEMS microphone (I suppose a camera is too much to ask for?) and you have the perfect bug. Better yet, it can be remain in its inert state for years, until needed.
It can be spread around like fairy dust, it won't transmit until it's illuminated by an RF feed and even if your bug-hunter discovers one - or ten - or a thousand in a room, it's a fair bet there will be many more not found. Even if "they" get them all, a couple of minutes will see a whole new batch introduced through the air-conditioning system. Or accidentally carried in on the clothes of people entering the room.
> the America regulators are equal opportunity finers - just look at the record fines handed out to American banks
Never said they weren't - just like muggers will prey on tourists and locals alike. The difference being that locals usually know what areas to avoid and recognise the signs of someone intent on "getting a tip" from a passer-by.
But when you're fining a company (or as it always comes down to: its shareholders) amounts in the $ billions in return for letting the senior officers - the people who must have known and approved if not actually taken part in the wrongdoing - walk. or get token punishments, shows a corruption in the justice system that has gone way too far.
By that point it has long ceased to be a law-enforcement operation, as there is never any judiciary involved - just a demand for a pre-determined amount of money and is merely extortion.
> Vodafone took what it had left of that $130bn and bought T-Mobile US
The US market is probably the worst, most restrictive and most predatory in the world. Their regulators seem to consider any foreign enterprise as being fair game. Yet their idea of "fair" is to hold a meeting, lock the doors and then threaten the senior executives with jail unless billions in
protection money fines are paid. With neither negotiation nor a trial to establish the legality, transparency or fairness of the punishment - or even if they were to blame for any regulatory transgressions.
So if Vodafone was to wander, innocently, into the american market with a wad of $130Bn bulging out of its back pocket, nobody should be surprised if the american government sees it coming and mugs them for it. After all: it's a quick "steal", costs their citizens nothing and is much more popular than trying to raise revenue through taxing the population.
Most software today was designed with one goal in mind: to get it out the door and money coming in, in the shortest possible time.
Hence, Version 1.0 is almost always Beta 0.1 and there are few major packages that are anywhere near usable before version 3. After that, it's a case of slapping patches on zaps on top of updates in a vain effort to plug the design holes that a faraway hacker-schoolchild with some free time discovered within a few minutes of installing a pirated copy.
What we need is a recognition that every patch we are required to install is a message from the vendor saying "this software (that we took your money for) is not fit for purpose". We need software companies to be held responsible for their shortcomings and irresponsible attitude of "we'll fix that in the next release". Maybe the answer is a "bug tax" where package makers are charged 1% of their revenues (not profits, that's too easy to manipulate and revenue is what the customers have paid) for every major weakness that is discovered by a third party and that money is then held for the customers as a sort of discount against the cost of maintenance&support contracts and future upgrades.
> And if you bribe the Spanish official this time ...
and the local Mayor and the Police chiefs (all three of them Gaurdia Civil, Guardia Local and the ever-loved Trafico, who's motto seems to be "our hand is always extended") . Plus a "donation" to the local town's fiesta and you'll probably find there are regulations mandating safety equipment that only the Mayor's extended family can supply.
It *must* be cheaper to go to the US - or The Moon - than deal with that lot.
> the BBC produces quality TV that the market can't...
Yes, it can. But 60% of it's TV budget goes on BBC1 - one single channel. And that channel screens the same sort of ratings-chasing content that any commercial broadcaster with a guaranteed £1.4Bn a year to spend on a single channel and no need to make a profit from advertising, would make.
Sure, the other £1Bn of the TV budget goes to making some nice (and low-cost) documentaries. Most of which consist of electronic mood music, a slightly well-known "personality" on a metaphorical and often physical journey ("I want to find out about ... so I'm going to ... to meet someone who can tell me - presumably because I can't just phone them") that might just tell the GCSE crowd something they didn't know before.
There are also a few (remaining) arts programmes that might just, on a good day, give the Sky Arts 1&2 channels a run for their money. But once you get past these middle-brow contributions to the intellectual wellbeing of the entire nation, there's not really that much left. (Unless you like Celebrity Antiques Road Trip)
Except that is, for the BBC's two secrets to its success. The things that makes it stand out, virtually alone, from every other TV enterprise on the planet: it's guaranteed income, come good times or bad and it's lack of commercial breaks interrupting the shows. Without those features, it would be indistinguishable from any other broadcaster, no matter how many episodes of Dr. Who it made.
> queueing outside Apple stores ahead of this evening's product announcement
It's no sillier than TV crews setting up shop OUTSIDE a building where some people INSIDE are talking - and then having the presenter read a statement prepared by a P.R. department that's in a completely different place.
Actually - yeah! it's all pretty dumb.
This still looks like a "Mark 1" device. However it does seem that there's an inevitability about this sort of thing -- and not just as an interface to 3D printing.
With luck, some years and several £££ Billion we might just get some proper 3D telly out of this, from the 3rd or 4th generation versions.
More worrying will be when your passport "photo" is required to be a 3D image, including the back of your head. Combine that with airport style "see through your clothes" millimetre radar and city centre CCTV surveillance and we might all need a dam' sight more than tinfoil hats,