Make sure there's a reason for the film to be rejected and then submit for reconsideration within 42 days. Then they have to watch it again.
40 posts • joined 4 Dec 2009
Make sure there's a reason for the film to be rejected and then submit for reconsideration within 42 days. Then they have to watch it again.
First of all, us Yanks really have no control over who gets a Nobel Peace Prize and, well, he's hardly new. Not to mention he was elected, mainly, because the previous guy allowed the economy to get wrecked while obsessing over non-existent WMDs.
But regardless of party or country, we've seen how well government intelligence services play their executives and legislators by exploiting technical ignorance and crafting the legal loopholes. The (open) Judiciary is honestly our only hope, which is one reason agencies work so hard to keep cases from ever seeing light in a courtroom.
Comey decried the decision by Apple and Google to turn on file system encryption ... complaining that it was impinging the ability of cops to do their jobs.
He also believes Ferguson, MO is somehow impinging the ability of cops (nationwide) to do their jobs.
I'm not sure of the point of the post either. But I'll take a catastrophic browser crash over a critical nuke event. It looks like the relative investment protecting us from either has worked out for the best.
Living reasonably close, fallout-wise, to Coronado CA, I'm wondering what software system is apparently sole prevention from one or more of the 160* W-80 nuclear warheads from doing what comes unnaturally, while also saving untold millions in cost. I do hope system integrity does not rely on further maintenance of a PDP-11/94 running Trusted Xenix.
I'm assuming the author wasn't referring to a possibly more hazardous source of radioactive material on Coronado Island, which is all related to medical devices. Off the navel base, the place is quite gray-haired.
* A 2002 figure from the National Resources Defense Council
...nor much authority for pitch either, as seen at 2:20, where the videographer became rather concerned for Paul's safety.
Upvote from me. The FTC took action because the bloke didn't actually use any funding for the project -- not because the project was risky. Of course, it's arguable that's all part of the risk.
Dell might think twice before assigning Mr. Rhodes to write brochure copy for their IoT gateway devices.
My kids and their mates have been gleefully crashing each others iStuff all week at school -- so I'd say the vulnerability is rather well publicized in the wild. I see it as a digital (and slightly better) equivalent to smashing actual mailboxes -- and possibly just as much of a federal crime. Time to have a fatherly chat.
I'm not sure what's meant by pointing out your visitor was American (well, maybe I am). But I will say that despite regulations, it's sometimes impossible to actually locate the seatbelts in our often decrepit American taxis.
I'm not an expert on technical aspects, but I don't see why anyone would see the NSA (or any similar agency) as having any role in ensuring any data can be sent with absolute security. If the NSA knows some crypto is truly secure, they will never admit publically such a method is safe. So, any method the NSA recommend *has* to have been broken. It's that simple. I'm guessing RSA incorporated NSA-approved crypto components mainly to secure government business -- a win-win for the NSA.
The NSA's (and some of Congress') public comments are exemplary in their ability to say something while saying nothing. The massive data vault being assembled in (I think) Utah (and probably elsewhere) is absolutely designed to capture every packet of digital communications transmitted from all points of the world. The encrypted bits will get summarily decrypted and indexed, either through vulnerabilities or by brute force, in advance of any potential warrant for the content. The NSA likely thinks they can do this even with domestic communications because the end result is sealed from outside investigators until a warrant is presented (and it's a pretty low bar to get one). Meanwhile, I recall it only takes a 50.1% likelihood that the communications qualifies as domestic to give that modicum of protection.
I don't envy the NSA's mission though. They are trying to operate in a world where the public demands both absolute privacy and protection from destructive actors using these same protections to help execute truly evil things. But the laws protecting privacy (for U.S. citizens, at least) are just plain hollow. Our protections are in the hands of a few secretly appointed judges who do not understand what they are being asked and have no real public oversight. I doubt they've rejected a single application for a warrant. This is my biggest problem with the whole situation. The Congress also needs to stop being toothless, ignorant enablers of this secret court -- but Congress' credibility is nothing to crow about either.
The NSA should just stay out of the commercial security business and stay away from academic contributions because they have no standing or credibility. They should quietly listen on targets identified by a (eventual) transparent oversight process and make it easier for the constituent agencies to obey the law. As things stand today, there is *nothing* these agencies can't get away with. And that's probably what they all want.
The last paragraph aside, I thought the piece was informative (uncharacteristically for El Reg). But it does lack balance -- no negative aspects to report? Really?
"What is it?"
"Well it's -- um -- it's green"
So, I have this, um, friend whose teenager recently racked up quite an Xbox bill on in-app purchases via an Amex card, which was provided by my friend's spouse for a one-time purchase some months ago. Just wondering if the Apple and Google situation might bleed over to Microsoft. Maybe I'll tell my friend to hang on to his Amex statements, just in case?
My cynicism is usually front and center, but I thought his presentation was good. I tried reading that 3300 word essay and lost the will to live midway through "Core". On stage, though, he had no script or even an outline and his pitch was better than any other PDC keynote. Even though all other presenters had notes handy, that was not a high bar to hurdle.
I think 'Security' == funding. NASA's description of the mission speaks mainly about mining stuff from asteroids, downplaying the bit where (some say) Bennu has a one-tenth percent chance of colliding with Earth by 2199. I'm sure the boffins suggested finding out what Bennu is made of is helpful both to mining studies as well as figuring out what's needed to perhaps blow the thing up.
...compared to what's spent keeping other, much older gov systems running -- not to mention the seemingly endless inability to successfully drive a major IT project.
It's free because Microsoft is about to be a major handset provider once the Nokia acquisition is done. If MSFT charges, say, Samsung for the O/S, then their former Nokia operations also have to "pay" for it, albeit through some audit-friendly royalty chargeback I don't understand.
It's the same situation MS Dynamics have in wishing they could bundle MSFT kit like SQL and SharePoint kit into ERP without incurring a cost impact. It's not allowed in many jurisdictions.
Stowing the usual snarkiness, it's good to see someone who can actually create modern software get a chance like this.
> if you start listening to the money men then your product strategy just turns from selling products people like into products people are locked into
Creating cash generally trumps creating value. And those who can do the first without bothering with the second are rewarded a hundred fold.
Nokia wants (and needs) the biggest market share they can get for HERE regardless of platform allegiance. And of course they are grumpy about pulling HERE from the largest mobile market, especially when Apple's own maps issue is a rare gift for alternative providers. They will invest whatever is required to fix whatever the problems are and re-publish as soon as they can.
All mobile platforms have their annoyances (we seem to have them all in my house). Simply criticizing others for having a platform preference, which seems to be the purpose behind many of these comments, is even more annoying, though. Sure, Apple doesn't have (quite) the allure or the power they once commanded, which is not a criticism. It's a natural evolution of any market for challengers to gain ground, regardless of their velocity or success. Who would want it any other way?
...at least long enough to preserve the resale value of my phone until it's fenced?
This was a nice diversion today, at least for me...
...similar thoughts, but far less bitterness in 1987:
"Something wrong, sir?" he said. "Oh, nothing," I said gloomily. "It's just the new version of Microsoft Word."
PS. Maybe someone has a better, more official link?
But with gleeful pitch copy like "It's not an inapt analogy to compare this to light sabers," young Lukin has a future in rubidium marketing.
But they have removed things (at least in the preview edition) -- like supporting Facebook/Flickr sources in the Photo app.
I did a little (better) looking around, and I see your point. I thought the SECG patent policy made the situation seemed pretty knotted up. But that's an effort to create standards, which has it's own IP headaches. Wikipedia made it seem like people were waiting for patents to expire to avoid having to weed through them. Sorry for adding any confusion and thanks for clarifying.
Maybe another reason, besides the obvious and abject dysfunction, Congress won't ban software patents? Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) is very much patent encumbered by, um, the NSA.
True, except they will then summarily capture and store your encrypted stream *forever*, regardless of your (not sure how to put this) "FISA standing" (51% chance you are foreign, etc.). Since they can't read your content in the moment, there's no privacy violation per se in collecting your data.
I'll bet a separate FISA rubber stamp lets them proactively analyze your encryption method and partially decrypt your data if possible -- just so they can be ready to do it quickly when, well, "warranted".
Um, I actually think they've done their homework and looked at their reasonably credible experience with the cloud. In beginning, each MSFT product team was independently trying to be a cloud hero and doing crazy things (like forking the SQL Server code line). Getting to the cloud was a scorecard goal, which of course made doing the right thing much less important. It doesn't take a genius to know that all these services need to line up and sensibly share vision and execution with respect to privacy, security (NSA issues aside), billing, and marketing.
The real jeopardy will come from pushing customers into licensing schemes they don't want or don't understand. The nice thing about a subscription is that you can elect not to renew if something more attractive comes along. It's sometimes even cost effective to abandon an agreement in mid-term. The crap thing about subscriptions is that, for many things, we'll end up sending more money to Microsoft than ever before.
I don't like the article claiming demonic zeal. If anything, that resembles the criticisms of Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, or even Bill Gates. We vilify them while quietly following their lead.
All that said, I really still like my iPod. It's an old one that only plays songs and podcasts. It bugs me that I can only replace it with a more expensive and less suitable device. There was a time when that wasn't Apple's intent. And that's why the world's gone past them.
...to ban software patents.
> 12:12pm . . . "Take the long view and then figure out how to make money."
Easy to do when you have billions the bank on day one. I'd ask Twitter how that approach has worked for them.
...will enthusiastically, (and rightfully, IMO) show you Win 8 does a good job on a slate or mob, yet in the same breath throw the desktop edition squarely under the bus. Even in a room full of faithful partners like me, they didn't even try to sell the desktop story. I think the exact words were "leaving usability on a non-touch device aside, ...".
>Privacy hasn't been the only concern over backscatter scanners. In December, the TSA reluctantly agreed to
> conduct a new investigation into whether the technology might pose any health risks.
Exactly. These machine were deployed during a panicked reaction, their safety was never fully understood, and since that time have been slowly withdrawn starting with the busiest (or well-connected) airports.
Ah -- of course! But perhaps Tim violated the license by writing this article in Word 2012 on the Surface?
I'm not sure I know what that means. I can send an email to my dad, but not to a colleague?
Well, technically, I guess that's true.
Apple should have politely responded with facts, as best they know them. It's fine to say the issue is iether (a) on their radar and fixes are coming or (b) we don't see the issue.
But they deleted the post altogether, saying it shouldn't exist. That's not effective customer management.
> ...40 per cent seemed to prefer paying consultants to cut code by default to avoid making adjustments to the way they work...
Selecting and implementing an ERP package is primarily a political process -- the IT considerations are secondary. Companies want their cross-department functions tightly integrated, but that always means one or more constituent groups have their needs met through significant customization. APIs and web services help, but the real issue is development costs for coding and orchestrating integrations and extensions.
ERP implementation costs should -- before custom work -- be equal to or less than the license costs. That's arguably a clue the package can be tailored inexpensively in the first place. Second, make sure the package has a patch and upgrade process that fully preserves custom work. Third, a solid ERP packages generally produces a good online user community, which is also a customization resource center. Live users and independent consultants participating together in online discussions is a great asset for determining what kind of customizations to pursue and how.
Alienating the (albeit check-writing) princess-identity lot is practically a risk-free approach. There are not many ways to differentiate mobile phones other than whether it's an iPhone or not. Despite the risk (personally) in perpetuating the generalizations behind the ad, the Droid isn't going to pull market share away from the princesses anyway. So the ad is trying to provide cultural cover to entice, well, whomever. It's all unnecessary if the device simply does its job (which it seems to) and the carriers don't become doofuses, as they have here in the U.S.