Re: I'm confused.
I believe they call it 'lobbying' in the States, and it's perfectly legal for some reason.
6734 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Feb 2010
The trouble is, I still own a bunch of other devices which still use micro-USB (eBook, a torch, battery pack etc. etc.) so when I got a phone with USB-C I had to buy several new cables and chargers with multiple outputs (so I can charge other devices at the same time as my phone), and I get no advantage that I can see (the storage in my phone is not fast enough to benefit from USB3).
This whole 'herd immunity' plan sort of works, as in, once you've had Covid-19 once, you're almost certainly not going to get it again.
The rather obvious downside is that you're requiring a large proportion of the population to get ill in the first place.
Sure, the majority of younger people will be fine after a week in bed, but it's not guaranteed that people will be fine, and there doesn't seem to be any concrete plans for preventing at-risk people from being infected other than "try and self isolate".
I suppose that if you're the Prime Minister you can pretty much guarantee you'll get good hospital treatment, so fuck everyone else right?
Joseph Cyril Bamford (ie the bloke who started the company that now bears his initials) was the first person to combine a rear excavator (or 'backhoe' as the yanks call it) with a front digger, to create what British people just call a 'JCB', regardless of manufacturer.
Shockingly, the Mk. 1 Excavator was actually red and blue, not the iconic yellow.
At least a lot of IT jobs are just as easy to do from home as sat in the office, so there's no talk of shutting my employers down. In fact, what with helping all our clients rush to get VPNs and soft phones running, I wouldn't be surprised if we have quite a good month or two.
I'm just not sure how it's going to work for companies that (eg) set up trade shows, and if they can't make money, they probably can't pay their IT supplier...
When I say 'static html', I was thinking something more like this, with emergency contact numbers etc. Possibly an image or two, but no need for anything more than that. I'm thinking the sort of page you'd write by hand in a text editor.
So, a single 2kb file, times 200,000 users works out to about 400Mb total, so I think we'd probably end up being network-bound, before getting close to the limits of an average desktop. A GB connection would thereby limit you to about 2000 users per second.
I guess the question now becomes, do you really need a whole desktop, or would a Raspberry Pi handle it?
Website are only as complicated as you make them.
Scripts? CSS? A whole CMS? You don't work in marketing do you?
"I need to patch the server because of this new vulnerability, when's a good time?"
"Will this result in downtime?"
"Well yes, about five seconds while I restart apache, but overnight we only get one or t-"
"NO! Unacceptable! No downtime at all! You can have scheduled downtime in six months"
And it never gets patched.
"5) Which means that electric force as you know it, generated by electrons, is actually an *oscillating* field at some resonant pattern."
I'm not sure what this 'electric force' you're talking about is, but I assume it's the force imparted to a charge by the electric field that it's in. This may or may not be oscillating.
The charge in this case doesn't have to be an electron (or multiple electrons), it could be protons, or positrons (or more exotic things like muons). A stationary electron (or other charged particle etc.) produces a static electric field, and the force generated by that field is equally static.
You seem to be concluding that because the electric field that was applied in this experiment was oscillating, that all electric fields are "actually an *oscillating* field at some resonant pattern". This is incorrect, electric fields can be stable.
Your "some sort of electric oscillation" from 1) is caused by the experimenters pumping microwaves into their experiment in a (failed, as they later found out) attempt to create an oscillating magnetic field. It is not some underlying property of the atomic nucleus that they were experimenting on.
I keep seeing these graphs showing how if we work together (well, apart) then we can shift the peak of the outbreak and keep it under the dotted line of the capability of our health care system to cope.
Every time I can't help thinking that the dotted line of 'healthcare system capacity' is much higher than it really is in the real world, and no amount of mitigation is going to let us limbo out way underneath it.
Not that we shouldn't try of course, but the NHS runs out of capacity when there's a bad cold going about, and this is going to be worse.
I suspect the second part is the important one in this case.
Botnets are worth more, the more members they have, so it makes sense to go after clients, rather than servers.
I'd guess that they're also look at going after phones, but a combination of lower power and bandwidth, spottier connectivity, and higher baseline security*, make them less popular right now.
* Botnets like this rely on attacks that can be massively automated. A complex attack like (eg) Rowhammer, that requires someone to hand tune each attack is just too much effort.
In this NAO report, they state:
"The Home Office estimates that the total cost of providing Airwave is £1.7 million per day whereas a completed ESN would cost £0.7 million per day (paragraphs 1.14, 1.19, Figure 5 and Figure 8)."
But I'm not entirely sure what document they're referring to.
"why integrate a system into another system when the first system is no longer going to be used"
There's not going to be one day where they switch off AirWave, and everyone starts using ESN. It's going to be a gradual process, probably with small groups switching over piecemeal (and probably some switching back, and the usual hold-outs refusing to touch the new system until their managers physically take it off them etc. etc.). The upshot of this is that both systems are going to have to run alongside each other for a period of time, and looking at the process so far, that period of time is probably going to be measured in years, if not decades.
"Common sense says you just[....]"
This is a government project, what is this 'common sense' of which you speak?
When multitasking became common (eg on the Amiga), there was zero separation, because security was much less of a problem. Partly this was because most computers were standalone, and were never connected to a network, so all exploits required physical access.
The big change wasn't multitasking, it was end users being much more likely to run untrusted code on their machines, eg, in the form of javascript from a website.
In case you were wondering about all the downvotes, this article is about AMD making their own mistakes, entirely separate from Intel.
The fact that this is somewhat similar to Melthdown says more about where researchers are currently looking for potential vulnerabilities, than it does about AMD or Intel's design decisions.
" the cameras are not monitoring them pinching stuff from other peoples trolleys"
Do we know that for sure? Given that there aren't any trolleys (you just take things off the shelf and put them in your bag/pocket), I wouldn't be surprised if the cameras just watched for any movement of items.
Plus, when you enter you have to tie your identity to your amazon account via a phone app, so chances are, if you pick-pocketed things out of someone's bag, you'd get charged for it on your way out of the store. Unless you did it in a way which fooled the many cameras, and possible RFID readers (and more?).
Of course, if you can get into the store without giving your payment details, then you can just steal whatever you want from the shelves, (abit whilst leaving CCTV footage from every angle), no need to mug someone.
I'm getting most of my info from this article, and it sounds like currently it can barely cope with people shopping in the 'correct way', so actual theft is about as plausible as getting charged for 5000 bananas by mistake.
"multiple people used the same admin username and password to access the critical servers [...] the passwords used were weak [...] and on top of that, they were published on the department’s intranet."
Wow. So I'm guessing the CIA hires sysadmins who can't cope in the real world then eh?
You wouldn't even get past a basic PCI audit with that level of insecure behaviour.
I just read the title as "UK.gov is not sharing Boris' medical data among different agencies", which sums up one of the problems with data sharing that might actually get some notice from politicians.
How will they feel when any old civil servant can check their records and find out about that embarrassing little STI treatment?
(Disclaimer, I'm not saying that all politicians have had sexually transmitted infections. I'm just implying it.)