2371 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
A matter of scale
The basic problem that I have with BTC, and the reason I won't touch it (yet?) is its sheer volatility.
While it *may* be possible (leaving aside the desirability of doing so) to buy a lot of life's basics with BTC it is a small currency: there are only about 13 million of the suckers in existence and there'll never be more than 20-odd million. Even at their current value, Bill Gates could buy all of them and barely notice, if he so chose.
They are also subject to scare stories as one major government, or exchange, or hacking group -- or whoever makes statements for or against the security, status, value or validity of the stuff. You can't base your long-term wealth on an asset who's value can drop like a rock from one year to the next.
So while it's a nice toy for people to demonstrate to the world (or their friends) how hip, trendy and down wiv' da kidz (although it's only mothers of teenagers who would say something like that) they are, it's not something I'd be willing to bet my house, my salary and my pension on. So until BTC acquires both the status and scale -- measured to the nearest TRILLION € or £, I'll stick with something that I hope will see me into my dotage.
A dream come true
It's raining beer (and 'Pride, too!)
In psychological research how is informed consent even possible?
Leaving aside the basic problem that research is meant to discover new effects, psychology is a wholly imprecise
science subject and the average person's understanding of it is pretty much zero. As a consequence a researcher is not qualified to either list all the possible effects (on the test subject), nor to quantify the risks of taking part - or any possible benefits, either. Nor is a lab-specimen, sorry: test subject in a position to assess whether the value they get from the experiment is worth whatever might, or might not, happen to them: either as a result or just naturally, from life.
Without that basic level of information, any consent is worth no more than "we'd like to do something to you. It probably won't (physically) hurt, but apart from that we can't make any promises". Which is probably little different from the level of personal protection that FB commits to in the Ts & Cs that nobody ever bothers to read, before they accept.
What the eye don't see
> the "strongest material" broadcast well after the kids are tucked up in bed.
... and watching avidly on the tellies in their room.
Seriously, the watershed does nothing to "protect" children (most of whom have the most open-minded, flexible and resilient attitudes until they get "educated"). At best, it allows their over-protective parents to kid themselves into thinking they are being "good" parents. Mainly to brag about it with other "good" parents at the school gates - in a python-esque we were so poor ,,, sketch way, except now it's about intolerance. It's certainly not for the long-term benefits of their charges, themselves.
As for being offended by programmes content. Isn't that the sole reason so many people watch? To pretend to be shocked by the sorts of language, undress (and activities) you'd see every day if you walked through a town on the way to the beach.
You get the sneaking feeling that some people lead such dull and disconnected lives, that they don't feel alive unless there's been something "stimulating" on the box, for them to get worked up and subsequently complain about.
Re: Security scan?
> Edited to add: Just read filik's suggestion of using the likes of:
> rm ./*
All fine and dandy, until one day when you get a sticky "dot" key and accidentally transform it into
- even worse with the -rf option -
(don't try this at home, kids)
dot and slash
[ disclaimer: I'm not gonna try this on the production system in front of me ]
ISTM this is merely sloppy use of wildcard expansion. I have always assumed that these are easily prevented by changing the "*" argument (and root users who put that in scripts should be shot - slowly) to "./*" or $EXPLICIT_PATH/ ... which changes what is expanded by the shell from being arguments starting with a dash, into pathnames, all starting with ./<something>
P.S. If you really *were* trying to write a trapdoor into a system, surely you'd use "invisible" files with names containing backspaces or octal \000 characters?
Re: Sorry, Bell Labs...
> In what way? [ was the development of the transistor disruptive ]
Before transistors: all electronics was bulky, fragile (even metal-enveloped valves), consumed a lot of power, gave off a lot of heat, required high voltages, was expensive to build and assemble.
After transistors: electronics became miniaturised, portable, low power, low voltage, highly reliable, extremely densely packed (which allowed much higher operating frequencies). It also drove all the other miniaturising processes (such as MEMS sensors) and nano-technology that we are _starting_ to exploit, now.
These changes moved "electronics" from being one or two large brown boxes in a household and nowhere to be seen in an office, factory or shop to being everywhere and facilitating every single thing we do, being involved in the manufacture of every single thing we touch and becoming ubiquitous in the daily lives of almost every person on the planet. Even the 2Bn people who have no mains electricity rely on mobile phones to improve their lives.
Re: Sorry, Bell Labs...
> Interestingly, although these are innovative, they are not disruptive.
I would suggest that the transistor was the single most disruptive technology of the 20th century. Above nuclear power/weapons, antibiotics, air travel or even fiat money
The degree to which it opened up new possibilities and changed our way of thinking was unsurpassed.
Too much law
The biggest barrier that disruptive technologies have to face today (it was different in the past: even up to 20 years ago), is litigation.
There are a lot - the vast majority - of companies that make stuff and profit from what is here, now, today. They value the ability to make this stuff so much that they've managed to persuade the legislature of the whole dam' world to grant them patent protection of every stoooopid little idea, component, design flourish, technological variant and process they could possibly push through - and the bar is set pretty low.
As a consequence, any new improvements on existing products that small companies are foolish enough to try and promote will get stomped into the ground by queues of lawyers focused on protecting the vested interests of their behemoth paymasters. Irrespective of what benefits these innovative ideas and products might bring.
That means it's getting harder and harder - and taking longer and longer - to "disrupt" an existing incumbent. The only areas open for innovation aren't to disrupt existing, originality-squashing, products but to branch out into new areas. Areas that have no stultifying pre-existing IP and where it will take the legal smother-pillow 20 years to catch up and kill off your novel ideas. But by then, you'll be the industry dinosaur: desperately fending off all these new, warm-blooded, innovators and trying to kill them off, in the same way others attempted to do-for you a generation ago.
Improving your reproduction
All very lovely, scientific-sounding and possibly even correct.
However, it all falls by the wayside when faced with the modern fashion of compressing the dynamic range of the music source material to increase its "loudness" to make it stand out from the crowd (or now: blend is and not get left behind) when broadcast or streamed to the user.
So given that fundamental quality limitation, not to mention all the background noise in out lives, the quest for "perfection" whether in loudspeakers, amplifiers or dragging a piece of crystal across some plastic is largely futile.
As it is, for most audiophiles that I have met, the goal is not perfect audio quality. The real goal is to impress their other audiophile friends with the size and cost of their stack.
Re: Assessment methods
> All candidates outsourced to India for the actual exam
and marking performed by america's electronic voting machines?
... and surely if you can get someone else to provide the answers to your computing problems, you should be awarded a GCSE in IT management?
The internet is now ... closed for business
> to see if their emotions could be manipulated based on which posts they were served
So if these people find that explicitly manipulating the emotions of web users is illegal, that's pretty much the end of the whole thing.
Every advertisement intends to manipulate readers' emotions (greed, lust, fear, more greed, confusion, avarice, envy and some more greed). Every
troll post tries to do something very similar (e.g. Apple products are overpriced and only bought by people who value style over substance) such as instill anger, laughter (at those who get angry), confusion or happiness - as Madame de Gaulle once mispronounced.
Get rid of all instances of this and we're back in the days of Gopher and newsgroups.
Yes, I remember that, too - not your girlfriend, the catalogue. Didn't it have a picture of Concorde on the front cover?
I also remember being able to send in an order on the Thursday in one of their post-paid first-class envelopes that were included in every order and getting the swag delivered on Saturday morning.
How the sale went down
The private equity people walked into the room - at which point all the Maplin
staff execs scarpered out of sight. When they did reappear, they were unable to answer the most basic questions about the business, merely reading out what was written about it in the catalogue. They also refused, point blank, to make eye contact.
When the P/E execs made their offer to buy the outfit, they got the response "sorry, we don't have one in stock at the moment, but if you come back next week, we'll order one for you - but in the mean time, would you like a radio-controlled toy with lots of flashing lights".
Luckily, the P/E guys were too savvy to fall for the Maplin teams offer of buying an extended warranty with the company (no, you don't get your money back if the company turns out to be broken), but they did buy an extra set of batteries for a bargain £5 million.
They do things differently out there
The problem with "rural affairs" coverage is that there's little or no scope to show these parts of the country as bastions of multi-cultural, liberal-arts, vegetarian individuals. And in that case, the BBC neither knows how to address them without the MC-LA types being horrified: both at the though that they don't have tube-trains "out there" and that their milk comes from cows - not Tesco (and that cutesy ickle bunny-wunnies are shot, skinned and eaten - by people) - and nor does it know how to present their concerns, interests and issues without their city-dwelling cousins ending up cowering in the corner, behind the sofa (so what does happen to all the "boy" calves, who are no use to a dairy farmer?).
Not to mention the ever present possibility that behind the back of an O/B presenter, we might be treated to the sight of some pigs "makin' bacon".
So, given that the BBC likes it's audiences to sit neatly in nice little compartments, that are easily catalogued with non-controversial and "balanced" mixes of people one can see why people who either choose to eschew cities, or have escaped from them, might not fit into their comfy view of their audience.
Though it would be amusing to see how a reporter deals with being on the wrong end of a shotgun barrel in a "get off my land" situation.
> ... could breach Britain's Data Protection law
yes, and my house "may" be at risk ....
Don't give me wishy-washy possibilities: anything might do anything. Tell me what will or does happen - or stop wasting people's time.
The point of a government watchdog is not to wring its hands and say "well ... it might (or might not)" Hell, I could train a frog to jump onto "might" or "might not" lily leaves and it would have the same value as a statement of the legal position. If these guys don't know what's going on then we have to ask: what's the point of them? If it will need some case law to decide, then surely these people should keep their gobs shut until such clarity has been obtained.
File under: publicly financed waste of space.
New spin on old idea
I'm told that the victorians used to go to the railway station to buy their newspapers. Quite reasonable when you consider that they (as well the mail) were delivered by train.
Considering that so few working people are at home during the only time that couriers seem able to organise deliveries, if this threatens to take away a significant portion of their business and makes them buck up their ideas, it can only be a good thing.
Though it does give rise for a whole new set of excuses as to why your package has been delayed. How long until Amazon has to start apologizing for leaves on the line?
Setting up a bigger problem
> Simply put, code is a tool that lets you write your story with technology.
That sound you can hear is my head ... thump ... thump ... thump ... banging against my desk.
That might be putting "coding" simply, but it's so far from reality that it doesn't even count as being wrong.
Simply put, coding is writing instructions. Not what you want a machine to do, but what you're telling it to do - whether that's right or wrong. (Hint: mostly wrong). It requires very precise language and a very clear analysis of what you want to achieve.
To present it as some sort of nice, warm, fuzzy "story" will only attract people who will later feel both alienated by the reality and that they have been misled by the campaign. We, those of us who have done "coding" (really: the smallest part of the job) should set the story right. The only way to succeed as a "coder" is to have a firm technical grasp of what the end result should look like and to be very aware that, unlike other creative pursuits (and coding is a creative act), your tools have zero tolerance for interpretation and doubt. Hence a basic requirement is an eye for detail, not broad brush-strokes and arm waving.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
Few are called - fewer are called back
> I am not normally so dismissive
It sounds to me like you are the height of diligence.
My usual (read: only) strategy with all of these requests is to delete them out of hand - with no further thought, or guilt. The only exceptions being if I have met the individual, in person recently. And that there is a picture or hint of a cat, baby or obvious product anywhere in the material they sent me regarding the invitation.
So long as I actually know the person I will consider adding, friending or whatever other -ing is in vogue.
Security and users don't mix
There is no "storage vs security" issue.
If you have a design AND implementation that is intrinsically secure (hint: nobody does, the best there is are systems that will slow hackers down to a speed that matches the slow and ponderous decision making processes with an organisation ... sometimes), then adding more terabytes won't change that.
Obviously you mustn't do anything idiotic, like have storage you can log in to, or control remotely, or physically remove. But a secure system can have 1GB of mass storage (though that's not very "mass") or 100 PB.
However, more storage is generally a portent of bigger problems: users.
Users hate security and will go to great lengths to subvert, avoid, negate and deny it. It slows them down. It makes them jump through hoops. It makes them type in stuff and remember stuff. In a JFDI world, it's an annoyance - and we'd all be better off without it (so I'm told). Thatt's not an unreasonable attitude, when your users are under-staffed, over-stressed and pressured to "do more with less". Given the lack of loyalty that companies show their users, why should the users show any back? Perhaps by caring about security and working diligently to implement it - after all, it's not their data.
So if you want a secure system, first you have to secure the people who access your data. That starts by treating them with respect, instilling a feeling of ownership in them and rewarding them (monetarily or environmentally) for NOT making mistakes, taking shortcuts, and by giving them a system with security that is neither onerous nor intrusive. If you can do that, you will have the skills necessary to design systems that are secure by default - no matter how much storage they require. Better: you'll have users (and maybe even admins) who respect the need for that security. What you can never do is add security, like a new coat of paint, after the fact.
A better mousetrap
> someone coming in with a completely blank sheet, able to write a clean and efficient system from the ground up,
All very fine, in theory. However a lot of the baggage that banking systems have are the fixes, workarounds, tweaks and efficiency hacks that had to be added to the original clean sheet bank system in order to get it to work securely, according to all the regulations, without stiffing customers' 0.0001 pennies from rounding and able to "talk" to all the other banking systems: which don't quite work in practice the way their paper specifications say they should.
How long would it take to get from a brand new, clean system to one that is able to operate in the same environment as all the mature (albeit rat's-nest coded) systems we have today.
And on another note: how would you persuade customers to deposit all their "hard earned" with you. Customers need to have confidence in their banks and all the annoying little glitches that would be found during (say) the first few years of operation wouldn't add to the customers' feeling that their cash was safe. And when you add to that the sinking feeling that a customer would get when receiving their introductory letter:
Dear Mr. Worstall,
Thank you for opening a current account with us.
Your account number is 00000001.
Please tell all your friends about us
Doesn't really work, does it?
Sieze the opportunity
> "We're not perfect but we have got a lot better than we [ Virgin Media ] were,"
Not too surprising, since they have do so much scope for improvement.
Personally the only complaint I have about Sky broadband is the godawful help desk. However, once you can get past or short circuit that, their actual techies have been both helpful and reliable.
> Success can only be measured in time
Now that's impossible! (dot com)
I wonder how much success she's had with
this venture our money? Would it be a couple of months, or a millisecond?
Although investing her own money is a bit of a win-win since any losses just reduce the amount of tax she (or more likely: some company that her accountant has magicked into existence as a container for this venture) has to pay, whereas any profit would go directly back to her.
Swings and roundabouts
It's an old cartoon, older than the internet, but still sums up the world of IT just as well as when I first saw this 30 <ahem> years ago.
Apropos the question the governor or the governed
The answer is: both. IT has a parasitic relationship with "the business". Neither side can exist without the other, which is probably why both sides hold each other in such disdain.
> So if I buy a widget from my supplier for £10 and sell it for £30 I book £20 profit and get taxed on that.
Good heavens! No. You don't even need schemes with other colluding companies.
Your accountant factors in the cost of sale: your time at whatever hourly rate you have arbitrarily chosen. The amount of time taken to sell-on the widget: again, at whatever number of hours you arbitrarily decide. Plus the cost of advertising, marketing, essential office services and "reputation" and of course the cost of your accountant. When all that is taken into account you'll probably (if your accountant is any good at all) have made a loss and will have no tax to pay.
For most well run companies, the amount of profit (or loss) they report is a choice they make. Even shopkeepers in your local high street do the same thing. Making too much money? Simple: buy extra stock to use up that cash, thus reducing your taxable "profit" for the year.
If I can't see it, it doesn't exist???
> the benefits it brings to the local economy are intangible
And the attributes that taxes pay for are equally intangible. You know, all those airy-fairy "things" that we all enjoy, that without a tax-paying population we wouldn't have. All the stuff that governments use our money to buy (duck houses notwithstanding) for us.
Things like: security, stability and laws. Whaddaya mean? you thought the police and the teachers and suchlike were all paid for by the mythical "they". The same people so often cited in phrases such as "they really should do something about ... " Or that there was some infinitely deep pot of money that paid for all the "free" services we have. All the education, health, welfare - you could even put BBC TV (oh yeah, and radio) into that category.
These features of our society might be intangible. They might be so subtle or ubiquitous that we forget they exist or just assume they'll always be there - a bit like The Internet, without which Google and its ilk would never exist, However, it's exactly those properties that make one (developed) country or another more or less attractive to multinationals and mega-corporations - which presumably, is why Google has chosen to have a presence in Australia,
You'd hope that a provider of internet services would have a bit more of a clue about where her business comes from and what it's based on.
Re: The socks have it
> the Pyke scale should be logarithmic
Tricky one, for two reasons.
First of all, is the scale additive or multiplicative? If one has a box in the
lab shed marked "lasers: misc." that puts you somewhere on the scale. Likewise if you just happen to own a mass spectrometer (or have a penchant for high altitude balloons), you would also be on there, somewhere. However if you have both does that make you a boffin by the sum of those devices "boffinism" or does it imply a greater area of boffinism, hence multiplying (or adding the log()'s) of the individual contributions.
Secondly, how would a logarithmic scale denote a person with zero boffinism? log(0) is not a defined value and there are no log()'s of negative values and log(<fraction>) comes out to be < 0.0.
In the spirit of making things as complicated as necessary a logarithmic scale would need to be calculated something like:
($value == 0 ? 0 : sign($value) * log(abs($value+1))/log(2))
Where the log(2) is a normalisation, so that a 1 Pyke boffin gets assigned a value of 1.0 - we wouldn't want them to be too Pyke-y, would we?
The socks have it
It would be very easy to label a boffin with physical characteristics: Einstein's hair, Patrick Moore's dress sense (not that I'm suggesting Sir PM ever wore a dress), Brains from Thunderbirds glasses. However, that would be shallow.
No. A true boffin would be a person who was wonderfully at home with all sorts of abstract notions. Who has a brain the size of a planet and is able to explain simple facts and phenomena in such complex and technical terms that no-one without and equally sized brain would have a clue what he/she/it was taking about. If they have to lapse into differential equations, tensor algebra or Schwartzian Transforms to "explain" - then so much the better.
A true boffin would also be totally mystified by the inability of us ordinary folk to follow their descriptions and train of thought.
One other thing that a boffin would always do, would be to require strict, technical, definitions and (of course) units of measurement to quantify whatever it is they are referring to - including their own boffinry. I would like to offer the Pyke as a unit of boffinry. 1 Pyke would adequately describe Dr. Magnus, himself. With perhaps a milli-Pyke being the level you attain by wearing mis-matched socks (and 2 mPyke for only wearing one sock). There could, of course, be negative values: attributed to individuals who not only didn't meet the requirements of boffinry, but who actually eschewed them. Being organised, pretty or understandable would count against and that's why there are so few boffins on TV any more.
Honesty is the best policy
One of the inter-generational differences (whether it's the metaphorical cart the or horse in this argument I don't have the insight to say) is attitudes towards honesty: telling the truth - whatever "truth" turns out to be.
One of the many throwaway lines in the BBC sitcom Just Good Friends (other than the innoculation classic: "didn't you feel a prick?" "Well, Penn, I was a bit embarassed") was Penny's admonishing Vince for telling lies and getting the reply "That's because I'm a liar" and after that the whole topic was dropped and the story moved on. Vince tells lies: it's no big deal.
These days, it seems, that "being a liar" doesn't mean telling people that it's "black" when really it's "blue". But that lying now means not volunteering every single piece of relevant, or otherwise, information at the earliest opportunity - what used to be called "blabbing". Worse than that: being caught lying (telling actual black is blue untruths) is portrayed as being such a heinous crime that the very thought of it is, well, unthinkable. So much for "ooops, you got me" and brushing it aside.
In such an environment, where information is offered freely to or even: forced on a person, how can the generation brought up thinking that way act any differently? They have it drummed into them that giving information is mandatory. That withholding it is "sinful". That you must tell the truth all the time, to everyone, no matter what the consequences for anyone involved.
So when a big, bad, internet giant says "tell us everything", they blab. Age, height, weight, most intimate thoughts, address, list of 50 closest friends, political leanings, shoe size, suspicions about classmates, inside leg measurement, which musician they'd most like to have sex with, hair colour, medical history, favourite programmes and fantasies about their teachers. Hell, even PV-ing is less intrusive.
Whether this is considered "being honest", or is simple naivety, or some sort of catharsis we'll never know. The good thing is that all this data gets lost in the mix along with the billions of other personal records. Fortunately for all these data-givers, so little of it is either interesting or relevant.
A quadcopter by any other name
Flying a quadcopter in Texas?? Isn't that known colloquially as a "target"
Re: Expensive & pointless
> Have you tested that hypothesis
Have a read of Ars Technica's article from the beginning of 2014 that blows holes through the myths of the benefits of curved screens.
They give a very detailed analysis of what most people instinctively know,
OK, here comes the paring knife.
Let's forget about 4k. As the BBC says "They [ the 3 matches they will stream ] will only be made available to a limited number of TVs at BBC sites". So a 4k telly is bugger all use. That knocks out #1, #5, #8 (doubly so for being curved) and #10.
Curved screens are a classic "because we can" that have no practical use - unless you're a billy no-mates and watch everything by yourself in a completely darkened room. Just make sure you don't trip over your cat (of which, no doubt, you have many) when you stagger out to recycle all the tins of strong lager that are now pressurising your bladder.
And for the rest: oooh. a huge screen - over-compenasting, much?
Oh yeah, a projector, too? I suppose that works if you want to spend the whole match time trying to get the picture "right", while not projecting it onto that vase in the corner of the room and avoiding both the door (makes the action go away when someone opens it) and the curtains.
To summarise. You already have a perfectly good TV. You probably have several. Just sit down, make yourself comfortable: six-packs on one side, crisps on the other, remote somewhere safe and the phones off the hook.
Intelligence on the internet?
The ability to imitate a 13 y/o boy is a good goal - if you're a 12 y/o boy.
However, I feel that if Alan Turing was alive today, and looked at the traffic on the world's most popular social media sites, he would (quite naturally) assume that they were test-beds for AI's and that there was still a long, long way to go before any of them appeared even faintly human.
If this result tells us anything, it's that a test devised right at the dawn of the IT era, before there was any experience of AI to draw on, is too limited to be useful. Just as we don't believe that aircraft imitate birds (even though they both fly), we shouldn't consider this anything like a computer imitating a person.
Re: OMG Mirrors!
> If a newspaper is copied in the forest and there's nobody there to read it, does ....er ......
does a bear use it for toilet paper?
Is this what the EU is for?
to provide technical support to the bewigged-ones and prevent they from hitting the STOP button on the internet whenever they get a panic attack from all this newfangled tech-knowledgery that has suddenly appeared all around them.
If so, maybe it IS earning the billions we chuck at it every year </ohcraphowdiditgetthisbad>
The Magic Roundabout
> manufacturers to launch a new range of connected Freeview HD televisions and boxes which consumers will be able to buy in store
Gottit! A gizmo to make TV watchers buy yet another gadget. Given the failure of 3D (which never actually was 3D, just a trick of perspective) and curved screens - surely the dumbest idea so far this century (really: tellies that only show an undistorted picture if you happen to be the one person sitting in the sweet spot AND which gathers all the reflections from everywhere in the room and beams them directly into your eyes?). Given those
failures brilliant marketing strategies, the TV industry desperately needs to get us all buying more crap.
What better than telling us that the smart TVs we've bought over the past 5 years are all now obsolete,as they won't have the software to receive this new service (and after the first and probably only software upgrade, won't be able to receive it in the future - after someone, somewhere changes something and we all have to whip out our wallets again).
The only question that the once bitten, twice shy consumers should be asking is "what guarantees are there that this platform, with it's multiple content providers, won't implode under the weight of it's own infighting in a few years time and we all have to shell out again, just to get back to watching all the TV that wasn't good enough to watch live when it was first broadcast?"
Personally, I give it up until just before the 2018 world cup. What a coincidence that would be?
Pro or con?
> sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause
How about requiring some of the responsibility for insecure and badly designed systems to fall on the heads of the people who design or (mis)manage them? One of the properties of being a "professional" person is taking responsibility for the quality of your work (on the basis that it is specialised and therefore beyond the grasp of "ordinary folk" to understand or critique) and that you have a duty of care towards those who place their trust in your services.
Maybe if people who's designs were so flawed - or who cut out every failsafe, oversight, procedural check or protection mechanism for reasons of cost or stupidity - that they amounted to criminal negligence were held to account there would be at least a start to getting some half-decent, secure software. What we have at the moment is like blaming the woodworms when your house falls down.
Re: Was the UK tax paid?
> The oath was made at the American embassy in London
The embassy will be considered U.S. soil and therefore not part of the E.U. or the U.K. (except for when it suits the embassy staff: such as to watch UK TV (which, according to the broadcast copyrights may only be watched in the UK), using "our" air and water, etc.
And as for taxes: given that the U.S. along with Russia and a few others, mostly equatorial-belt dictatorships, refuses to pay UK taxes and levies such as the congestion charge¹, traffic violations and parking tickets, I don't think there's much hope they'd do the honourable thing here, either.
 ref: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23266149
Up the river
> She took an oath of office on Monday ... placing one hand on a Kindle Touch
One would hope the object at the centre of the swearing in has some idealogical meaning for the swear-ee. That it reflects their core beliefs and/or values and that this is what they are linking to the oath they profess,
In that case, it's not just the symbolism of what's on open display, as bibles and other holy books are closed for the oath, so what's displayed is unimportant - save for identifying the object for what it is. But the symbolic quality of the object resides in all the other texts, ideas and values contained within.With the Kindle, one would assume that contains Amazon's terms and conditions for use (among other things).
One of the sentences says:
By using the Kindle, any Reading Application or the Service, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
And with this swearing in, the Kindle has definitely been "used", if not for the intended purpose: but used is used. Has she just sold her (diplomatic) soul to Amazon?
Britain's got secrets
> classified 3 levels above Top Secret
Looks like the good old Top Secret isn't quite so "top" any more.
A case of inflation or just using the "onion" strategy of having layer upon layer?
It does make you wonder, though. At what level are things really kept secret, so that only those who need to know, actually *are* the only ones who do know. And what is it that they seriously don't want us (or The Guardian) to know about.
We should be told!
Re: The poor is where the money is
> Not much per person but there are so many of them
It's not just poor people, but poor people in remote areas. Even in third world countries, a large proportion of the population are city dwellers.
So if their countries' infrastructure is so bad that there aren't even any phone lines (or internet cables) that can reach these cut-off individuals - will the roads be in any better shape? How are the goods they buy from all the tantalising advertisements going to be delivered?
Please let the advertising be for stuff that will actually help improve lives: not just for games add-ons and pr0n.
Going off the rails
> All versions of Mint until 2016 will use exactly the same base as this version
Which means that everything will work fine ... until you change something. Just like with all Linux distros.
It also presumes that everything you could ever want is available through one of the "approved" repositories. And that the software version available there is fully up to date with both bug fixes and features.
If only that were true.
While most people who's daily usage is limited to surfing, playing videos, knocking out the occasional document and possibly spreading some sheet - then everything will be fine. But what happens once you stray off the path? If you "need" an application (say a wizzy new webcam app) that isn't on the list of blessed software - or only has a version several major releases behind. What then. You find a repository, add that to the list, download your new application and all it's dependencies.
And there's the problem ... You're no longer on an LTS release. Your dependencies could include many newer library versions, updates of other, dependent, programs and possibly even security fixes that your LTS doesn't recognise or support. if you dare to buy new hardware during the 2 years of LTS-ness, there' every likelyhood that you'll have to look above and beyond the official suppositories to get the support, drivers and libraries you need to get your new toy to play.
2 years is a long time in the Linux world, and things change quickly. What are the chances you'll want a change, too?
Linux on the postage stamp
> The 25 x 25mm embedded system
Electric motors revolutionarised (groan!) the world. They're in most powered appliances these days - but they're "invisible": just one of the components that we don't give a second thought to.
This little thingy, and its future generations could do the same.
While there are embedded microcontrollers that are just as ubiquitous as electric motors, they tend to be single operation, uncommunicative, non-networked, un(re)programmable devices that are indistinguishable from all the other chips, and are there simply to replace a handful of logic chips and keep costs lower.
However, these devices will be exposed to the outside world. They have networking capabilities and therefore can be accessed by anyone with a Wifi transceiver connected to a keyboard (whether you want them to connect, or not). Not only is that their strongest feature, it's also their biggest drawback. Apart from the hacking vulnerabilities, a dependency on a network link that can disappear, be reconfigured or suffer RFI is just another thing to go wrong. So while these could turn the IoT into reality (once the Mk 2 gets its power consumption down) I really hope that whoever is making these devices, or embedding them in their products, is gearing up to provide an extremely highly staffed help-desk.
Maybe that's where the real money is to be made?
What goes around ...
> This column is a repeat publication
We know that TV "stops" (well, stops broadcasting anything worthwhile) during the summer ... and for the month or two over christmas ... and at weekends and various random times throughout the year when the american broadcasters go for a lie down and screen sports instead of entertainment - and we have to stop too, in case we accidentally see something good first.
So in the spirit of repeats, let's have a few commentards repeat some tardy comments.
Here's a possibly prescient offering from October 2007: (filed under Olympic ticketing system crashes under demand)
and in 4 years time ....
... what's the betting we'll see this exact same story again, only with a different country in the frame?
> automation can also weed out errors that may creep in
Automation can also apply the same cocked-up commands to all your databases in the blink of an eye. At least with manual operations, you know something's wrong after you've destroyed the first production instance. It's then possible (maybe even desirable?) to stop and investigate before breaking all the others.
While I'm a great fan of automation (as previously discussed here), I do realise that it's a "force multiplier" rather than unconditionally good. It can help you do good or bad things much faster. However it's also prone to problems when someone changes something that knocks your automatoin off it's rails (maybe something as simple as changing a password - always hard to automate *and* keep secure) or "fixing" a misspelled table name.
However automation can free up ones time to allow for more goofing around on IT forums. Sometimes that even gets mistaken for work.
Real or imaginary
> provide valid photo ID, such as a copy of their passport or driving licence
Strictly speaking, they are asking for an ID. Or something that looks like it's an ID. Or rather: a scan or photo of something that looks like an ID which may or may not have been doctored.
Whether the name or photo on the electronic copy of the (real or fake) document is actually the person (or their agent) who is asking for this take-down is not something that Google has any way of verifying. Unless they are planning to try mugshot matching against their collection of individuals in photos that someone may have correctly tagged.
One assumes that this is merely a deterrent, rather than any sort of checkable auditable "proof". And that if someone does decide to be a little bit naughty and asks for someone else's (maybe <shock!> not even an EU citizen's) URLs to be removed, then there's nothing really that can be done. Except for Google to email the falsely removed victim and ask "is this you?" Which then just starts the cycle of verfication and validation all over again. Without any absolute proof of anyone's actual identify ever being independently validated.
But it does give Google a nice little stash of supposedly government issued ID documents (gee, I hope they are kept safe!) submitted by people with something to "hide" and a pointer to what it is they want to keep quiet. It would be a real shame if that collection of IDs and hush-ups ever got out. Is this really privacy, or is it actually making things worse?
Re: More useful to look at those who do *not* buy
> figure out the average age of those likely to use it, to better target the inventory on offer.
Well, yes. The vendors already know what inventory is most popular (since those are the products they have to refill most often). So adding the camera tells them nothing new.
And that's where the privacy concerns come in.
The vending machine can (even without a camera, just using a proximity detector) tell when people are nearby and NOT buying its wares. With the facial recognition that the camera allows, it will correctly get the identities of some (possibly just a small number) of these "lurkers" and through social media can target them. Maybe like this:
"Hello, this is the vending machine by the bus-stop speaking. I noticed that you walk past every day but don't buy anything from me. So here's a voucher for 10% off, valid for the next week. And if you don't use that .... remember, we know where you live!"
or worse: "we noticed that lady you were with every day last week isn't your wife ... "
Re: "hide all future posts from this source"
I guess that's what FB has come up against.
That so many people are hiding or unsubscribing that most of these feeds of trivia end up in /dev/null anyway (although the people posting this drivel: either explicitly or through the apps they use won't have a clue that nobody is reading any of it).
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Review Tough Banana Pi: a Raspberry Pi for colour-blind diehards
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Product round-up Ten Mac freeware apps for your new Apple baby
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'