356 posts • joined 19 May 2010
I don't see how this will go over well with the public.
Just mentioning the word "Axis" and most movie goers at this point will have no clue what you are talking about. Throw in a setting of an alternate reality in the 60s and I think the public won't know what to make of it.
Okay, I read the document. Just wow. They had an example of something that should be a quick fix: "user should be able to hit the ENTER key to activate the "submit" button function." Seriously? That isn't a given? That doesn't bode well for how the rest of the system works.
Also, what's up with the blacked out pages? What could be more damning of the SSA's handling of the project that it needs to be hidden from public view?
I have to say that the auditor did a great job though. Looks pretty thorough. Page 20 summed up my previous comment here nicely.
Having worked with many government and IT entities, the break down here is obvious:
1. Large company uses time and materials method for project billing.
2. Large government entity with mass of people each of whom have near equal say in project requirements that are often contradictory and certainly changing as they think of new things.
3. Profit until someone gets mad.
You need competent leadership when dealing with time and materials projects; preferably the person holding the purse strings will do nicely. The IT company will certainly not stop you from changing your mind a dozen times for the color scheme alone. Happily charging you for every little thing. So, it's best to know exactly what you want before you engage.
Now if the contract is on a fixed bid, it is in the IT company's interest to freeze the requirements they bid on and say no to all the changes. For these projects you want to have clear timeframes for delivery which include penalties for being late and bonuses for completing early.
Honestly, I have no idea why anyone agrees to start projects that are in that price range. As failure is the most likely outcome. If you want to be successful, then you make a road map of where you want to be and lay down the foundation for getting there: one piece at a time. Where each piece is bid on (fixed), and achievable within 6 to 9 months. Any project that takes longer than that is just too much.
Re: Man's gotta know his limitations.
Just means they didn't pack enough Alcohol.
Re: I have argued for many years
You should drop the word "intelligent" when applying that to a teenager.
I think I know the answer here.
Just tack on a "media tax" to the VAT. Then, have the UK government set up their own TOR feed that the creators post to. Whenever it's downloaded the treasury can pay them accordingly.
No need for lawyers or useless ad campaigns. Just let your government take care of it like everything else.
Great article. As each paragraph unfolded I found it answering the various questions I had and addressed my thoughts around the feasibility of the tech. Keep it up.
What does "huge" mean?
If you guys are going to use words like "huge", it would be nice if that was quantified using a known reference.
Are you talking like 1 meter or 300 meters across?
Out of the major companies that have mobile app stores (Apple, Google, Amazon - does MS even have one?) I'd have to agree that Apple has had great controls for quite a while. So the EC's moaning at this point seems to be completely unfounded.
My family has iPhones and iPads. I've turned in-app purchases off on all of those devices and enabled a PIN code that has to be entered to modify those settings. I've also turned off the ability to install and delete apps... and I was able to do that a LONG time ago. Finally, when I do go ahead and temporarily turn on app store (including in-app) purchases, Apple sends me an email confirmation.
What more do they seriously need to do? Maybe the EC could focus on things that are actually a problem at this point.
Re: Atheists and Religion
Now, wouldn't it be funny if we did find aliens and some of those aliens believed the universe was only 6000 years old as well?
I truly wish the History channel had stuck with verifiable facts instead of constantly running off into "sucker" territory. There are many subjects I'd love to watch a show about but I simply can't trust a single thing they say.
Re: A quote from Hawking
A blind man says, "They must not exist because I can't see them."
A deaf man says, "They must not exist because I can't hear them."
An idiot says, "They must not exist because that's what the other guys said."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Take from that what you will.
All I have to say is that I'm happy that my ipad and iphone allow me to turn in app purchases off and protect it behind a password. And even when I turn them on, I can require the password to be entered every single time a purchase is made.
If it wasn't for that there would be no way that my kids would be allowed near those devices.
"Put all of these pieces together to complete the puzzle and you have a clear picture of who the former smart phone owner was,"
Now that's funny.
Re: Well, well, well. I perfectly well understand that the expression "allies"....................
Which side of the pond are you on? -- just trying to clarify who you think needs to be persuaded.
In other words, are you saying the US should stop spying on it's allies or that the Germans should stop all the bellyaching and just get with the program already.
Re: I've posted a rant here before
I'd take a slightly different tact.
1. Maximum allowed ceiling of 200 feet while within a 1 mile radius of any airport.
2. Maximum allowed ceiling of 400 feet while operating within normal air traffic lanes.
3. Maximum allowed ceiling of 1000 feet everywhere else unless a flight plan is filed with the FAA.
4. Anything capable of flying above 400 feet must be registered with the FAA and include an active flight transponder and GPS system. A fail safe system must be built into it to allow tracking in the event of a crash.
A model aircraft (or remote controlled aircraft ) is immediately promoted to being a UAV when one of the following occur:
1. It is noticed by law enforcement or any other government agency.
2. It is noticed by the media.
You realize that activating a turn signal and looking at a mirror are actions that can be handled independently. In other words, they can both be first.
It's only when a dependency exists between the two, or that resources are constrained, that you have to pick one or the other. In this case, MS can say "cloud first, mobile first" and execute both simultaneously. Of course, this requires MS to have decent management and technical competence.
Re: Why are they called PINs at all?
I guess you simply aren't aware of just how many words and acronyms are constantly misused in the English language. The following was written over 60 years ago, and is still very much appropriate: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Sounds to me like the devs knew that the audit was going to turn something up eventually and decided to just go ahead and stop now.
Yes, the usage of the information collected by business vs government is very different.
However, the invasion aspect isn't. Any data collected by a business can be obtained by the state. The very fact that this is not only possible, but verified to be happening, means that your conclusion that data collection by businesses is not as dangerous as that collected by governments is ignorant at best.
It doesn't matter if google collects your browsing habits in order to serve up more targeted ads. Nor does it matter if AT&T tracks the location of your phone and it's usage in order to make sure they have enough cell towers in the right areas. What matters is if the state can "request" access to that data at any time and for nearly any purpose.
This means the very collection of that information, by any entity, is therefore a massive intrusion into your privacy and may very well be used against you either personally or in general. I see only two ways to fix this: either guarantee that a States cannot force a company to hand over it's data OR for those companies to be barred from collecting it in the first place. Unfortunately neither is ever likely to happen.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if the kids today haven't read 1984: they have no control over it. Simply living in a technology driven country means you have "opted in" to giving up any semblance of traditional privacy. I appreciate what Snowden has done. At the same time, anyone paying attention for the past 30 years should only be surprised that things haven't gone even further.
Re: "Low Level Analyst"
There are some questions that it's just better not to ask. If you into the answer it might mean you have to do something about it.
Re: No public trial; no public evidence
I'm not entirely sure what the point of snowden standing trial is.
Either he leaked actual NSA secrets which shows a complete disregard for international treaties and us laws or he didn't. If the former then the NSA and federal government admit they are douche bags...but lock him up instead of the people in charge of this crap. If the latter then he hasn't actual done anything wrong.
If I was Russia or China then I'd shoot him at some point, whiling framing a known US spy. They already know a big part of what the US does, snowdens death would be viewed by many as a retaliatory thing by the USA which would just cause more PR issues for them. Quite frankly the US government should be doing everything in its power to keep him alive.
Don't these frogs know that your supposed to check in with customs before entry?
Hmm. Some might call them illegal amphibians; but I'm sure they prefer "undocumented croakers"
I humbly request you stop posting on topics that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Stick with storage.
Re: Why the crap are they using GitHub in the first place?
Simple. It's cheap and easy.
The programmer didn't have to call IT and ask them to setup a special location for this type of info. If they had, it likely would have taken between 2 weeks and 2 years to get it pushed through.
I'm sure IT would have found a hundred reasons why it just couldn't be done with a few clicks. You know, like saying that they'd have to setup a new "secure" server for it (and therefore it needs to be budgeted for), because they wouldn't want an accident to occur where the wrong person got access. They'd also need to make sure it was part of the backup strategy - likely necessitating additional software licenses for the backup program. Also, they'd have to perform PEN testing on it and add it to the list of servers they have to monitor for problems...
There's a long list here of things any IT admin would likely bring up just to make sure that they don't have to do any more work.
My favorite real world example that I personally witnessed was seeing a developer be hired a week after a new head of IT was brought in. This developer was issued a new computer that he couldn't even START his development tools on because those required local admin access and the new head of IT refused to grant it. That developer sat in his cube for 6 months before the head of IT was fired. Then he had to wait another month while a new one was hired and got settled in before the absurdity was fixed. Idiocy in action.
Re: To be fair...
It's been enough time that those corporations should have moved off of any platform that required IE6 to work. Not doing so in this day and age is a complete dereliction of their responsibility and I believe they should be sued into oblivion.
IE6 was released 13 YEARS AGO. It's time to move on. And I don't mean that they should move up to IE7 or even IE8. I mean they should have their desktops configured to go straight to whatever the most current version of the browser is: IE11. If they are still running XP (god forbid) then those Network Admins have a responsibility to push Chrome, Firefox or one of the other contenders across the desktop and disable the older IE for any type of browsing.
The fact that several such corporations don't means that they are more than happy having their computers taken over AND/OR their administrators need to be fired. And, no, having McAfee, Norton (or whatever they are called this week) isn't good enough. Those things are complete horseshit and generally cause as many problems as they supposedly fix.
There's a very simple solution for cisco to follow: put the plant for building these devices somewhere other than in an American controlled territory and ship from there to the customer.
I'm confused. What the hell does "kicked an own goal" mean?
Is the author trying to say that MS now tests against their own software before alerting others? or is he saying that they normally do but didn't in this instance? Or is he saying that they used to but don't anymore?
Also, that quote from Brown needs cleaned up. The way it reads is that MSVR is supposed to prevent people from not reporting credit card payments to Microsoft's network. huh? I think you "..."'d an important bit there.
Making sure I understand this correctly:
Big companies, like AT&T, comcast, etc chose to advertise their services based on bandwidth (amount of traffic you can utilize at any given moment). They sold this to millions of people, then later complained that their infrastructure couldn't handle it. Rather than tone down the amount of bandwidth they make available to each of their subscribers (or build far more access points), they decide to put caps on the total amount of data transferred in a given month.
However, that apparently isn't good enough either. Now they want to charge a premium to those people who actually want to use the internet for the things they were told about: movies, visual phone calls, games, etc. Basically all of the things that every single advertisement for yet another mobile device says you can do.
I tell you what. Go ahead and implement the two speed internet. At the same time though I want every single advertisement about the devices sold by these companies to be perfectly clear. It can even have a positive spin. Something along the lines of:
"You can watch an entire movie once a month with this device!";
"Allows you to take 50,000 pictures, and even lets you back those up to your cloud provider each month at the rate of 3 pictures per day."; or even
"10,000 games available for download, you can even play them for 15 minutes each day!."
Now that I think about it: hell no. If a company wants to advertise bandwidth or speed, then the FCC should force them to provide that bandwidth 24 hrs/day, every day of year. The amount of data any individual device transfers over the course of a month shouldn't matter one bit.
That would "promote competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities" far more than allowing companies to screw consumers over even more with way too complicated plans.
The problem here is that Oracle is saying the license says one thing and Comcast, et al, is saying it says something completely different.
If I was a judge then I'd want Oracle to produce the license that was granted to comcast. Simply because they are the ones filing suit. Once done, then it would be up to comcast to produce the license that THEY received. If it was different then I'd throw the lawsuit out the window and probably have a DA go after Oracle for fraudulent court filings.
Ctrl-alt-del president huh? Whatever. He hasn't rebooted anything. What he has done is put together a patch work of garbage that even his previous supporters are starting to realize of utter crap. When you see "f Obama" written on bathroom stalls then you can bet he is losing support of the "lower" class. Of course that doesn't matter much anymore.
As far as his international pull: the guy hasn't a clue about how the real world works. Of course he jacked up America's clout. Not that it wasn't already heading into the toilet, it's just that he has done absolutely nothing except try and make nice with little despots that don't have anything to do with the real international stage.
If I was Putin then I'd have Obama on ignore and go ahead with whatever plans I had. Heck I'd probably ignore the next US pres to, unless they were willing to park a couple warships of my coast.
Re: "two websites that didn't work well without [IE]"
ZOMG. I didn't realize that all internet users went to w3schools.com.... /sarcasm. Puh-leeze. Browser stats/trends from that website are less than meaningless.
Wikipedia has a much larger audience and their stats are quite interesting. Is IE at the top? no, but everyone puts them firmly in the #2 spot. Be sure to read through how those various counters came by their numbers.
The entire system is intentionally set up to be incredibly complicated and I question why it needs to be that way and whether there exists a better route.
The back and forth discussion on whether HFT is necessary or not shouldn't even be a discussion. It should be readily apparent what value, if any, it adds to the system. However, that's obviously not the case.
So the question becomes: Is there a solid verifiable purpose for our money system to be so complicated? When something becomes complicated then only experts are able to benefit directly from it while non-experts have to depend upon people they really have no way of vetting to guide them. My belief is that our money system is complicated for no other purpose than to allow one group of people to legally steal the resources of another group.
To me, it seems that the only correct answer is to simplify the entire thing. As a business owner, I understand that companies sometimes need access to cash in order to facilitate growth. I also understand that its preferable to share the risk on any venture. Next I understand that the Value of a thing is entirely dependent on what two people (one buying, one selling) agree to.
So, I can understand why the need for a trading system. However, the system should be freely open with no preference given to any individual entity. The entire fee system and ability to essentially buy access to information before it's generally available means that only those with the deepest pockets will ever win and the individual person may as well go back to reading the stock price once a day in a newspaper.
Getting back to answering my question: the only reason for the complications is to allow the rich to play with their money while not being worried about what the average Joe does.
Should this change? Maybe. We could just leave it alone and allow the rich people to continue making money off of each other and the rest of us; which is the way it's been throughout history. We could mass together, torch wall street and wander aimlessly for some amount of time trying to figure out what to replace it with...until we realize we've been living on Animal Farm.
I'd rather hope that the whole thing would be simplified to make it fair for all players. However, there is just too much power involved in keeping things at the status quo. I'd be astonished the the EU is doing anything at all here, except for the fact that my understanding of the proposed changes will in effect change nothing. So a few HFT players have to slow down just a bit. Yawn.
Quite frankly I think the changes would benefit them the most as it means they'll be able to reduce their R&D costs quite a bit.... I wonder who started the quest to get HFT changed at all?
"The temperature on the planet is strongly dependent on what kind of atmosphere the planet has," said Thomas Barclay, research scientist..."
Wrong. Obviously poor Thomas hasn't been paying attention. If he had then he'd know that temperature is entirely dependent on burning oil and silly things like "atmosphere" don't play a part. Unless said atmosphere was destroyed by burning oil.
That said, we should send nukes. It's the only way to make sure they aren't competitors for galactic domination; in case something does live there.
Question about the actual story: why doesn't the mayor have the balls to just change the name himself? Seems like something he ought to be empowered to do.
Or at least just have a list of 5 different names and ask people to vote on which one they like ( with the current name not being a choice)?
Re: Assuming that..
Your statement "Conversely, the smaller you are, the more intelligent you are, and the nicer you are" simply isn't true.
A scorpion is pretty small, pretty dumb and not very nice. Fire ants fall into the same category.
"So, now what we have, assuming our correlation is correct, is smaller, more intelligent, nicer creatures. "
-- please refrain from making further assumptions.
Re: @Tom 7
It was a Monday, not Tuesday. We all know bad things happen on Monday mornings.
You forgot the sharks. Those lasers aren't going to swim around themselves you know.
I'm pretty certain spying has been going on since the dawn of man.
I'm also pretty sure that spreading FUD has been happening for just as long. Of course the Brits can be credited with modernizing it during WW I.
But I do agree: Y-A-W-N.
Re: Only me?
Nope. Not just you.. and not just the photos either. The drawings have the same progression to the expressions.
Please ignore that each set is the same person that's just been digitally altered. I'm guessing the middle picture of each is the original photo, but that's only a guess.
Reading between the lines
After parsing the statement it sounds like:
1. Rovio does pass this information to the 3rd parties.
2. Rovio has an agreement with the 3rd parties that they are not allowed to transfer the data to someone else.
None of that seems to assuage the original issue described by FireEye which is saying that Angry Bird data is gathered, stored and shared across the web. Obviously it is gathered, stored and shared with the advertisers.
Now, I'm not sure why the NSA would want to bother contacting Rovio directly for the data - so I believe them on that statement. However, I could absolutely see the NSA forcing the various ad platforms to hand over their information - it's much easier to contact a handful of companies instead of going through all of the ad vendor customers. This wouldn't break the agreement with Rovio and Rovio wouldn't even know about it.
Essentially, Rovio's statements are utterly meaningless.
Re: Things are even far worse than what people really think - even when wearing rose tinted glasses
Sorry, Dr Hill, but at this point in my life I have come to the conclusion that I simply cannot trust people simply because they have certain letters after their name or are affiliated with one group or another.
I'm not a climate scientist. Indeed, I'm not even a scientist by any formal definition.
What I am is a reasonably intelligent human being with a few years behind him. I've seen scientists in those groups you mention claim, not that long ago, that we were entering an ice age. I've seen scientists claiming that, contrary to the obvious, the Sun (or rather solar spots and the lack thereof) has no impact on our climate. In other words, I've seen supposedly smart people make all sorts of statements, some of them quite possibly true while some of them quite obviously not.
I don't pretend to know the finer points or details from one perspective or another. However I do know that the only way I can make an informed decision is if I'm allowed to view the available data. More to the point I want to know how, when and where that data was collected. If it was modified in any way then I want to know how and why. If it's unavailable for a given area then I want to know that. I also want to know what factors they have taken into account and whether they have decided others shouldn't be considered... and why.
If this is true, then any reasonably intelligent person that is willing to look should be able to arrive at similar conclusions.
However, this doesn't appear to be the case. More to the point the various movements appear to go out of their way to make any type of informed decision nearly impossible. A simple case in point was the transition away from "global warming" and instead calling it "climate change". The only reason for doing this was to confuse people. Any average person would of course agree that there is such a thing as "climate change" if the only thing they go off of is the traditional definition of those words. But that's not the whole story.
Instead we have the UN defining climate change one way and this IPC report using a wholly different definition. That one thing alone means that I simply can not trust anything else they happen to write in it.
I appreciate your post here but given the current state of things you can place me in the category of "denier". However, taking a play from your book, I'm going to change that definition. For the purposes of this post "denier" will mean "someone who refuses to believe the constant bullshit put out by those who think letters after a name or affiliations are more important than giving people the ability to review the data themselves."
Re: 2008 r2?!?
having migrated a few apps to work under 2012 I would say that '08 r2 is likely to stay around for quite a few years. Especially if we are talking about app servers. Some of the choices MS made with the latest IIS are... quixotic to say the least.
Re: Is Windows 8 fundamentally broken?
I couldn't agree more. The UI changes in win8, along with the removal of many basic administrative capabilities apparently was not driven by usage concerns. Half my office is currently on win 8 and I'm about to simply replace those machines and go back to 7.
No one likes it, even after months of usage, and my sys admin has threatened to quit if I allow one more in. We did the upgrade to 8.1 last week. What a joke. Had to uninstall an "update", reinstall that same update, creat a user account for the upgrade ( wouldn't let the local admin account do it), set them to download 8.1, etc. all in all the time spent per machine was roughly 9 hours. What a complete POS.
Of course, once all of that was done the damn things insisted on the logins being tied to Microsoft. We were just about at the point of introducing the machines to smith and Wesson when we found a UI bug that let us sidestep that. Once again MS completely misses the boat.
After reading the article I think it can be summed up as:
Airport fails to perform even a basic passport check which would have stopped two travelers. Troll who was issued a patent that should never have been granted says the answer is more tech.
This is me moving on.
not for me
I love the idea of having a wearable computer with the usage promise that glass offers.
I absolutely hate the idea that security is such an issue. How long until various governments decide they "need" to be able to access any individual glass device in order to get a view of what's going on at a particular location to satisfy "security" concerns?
I can absolutely see the probability of every country making such demands. After all, why put up security cameras at various intersections when you could just access the images of a particular user on demand?
It doesn't take much to imagine that state intelligence agencies would love to be able to keep at least 30 days of image and gps data on anyone wearing such a device. It also doesn't take much to know that those same intelligence agencies could require the manufacturers to build such capabilities into the products and for telecom businesses to hide the data transfer and to force those businesses to keep their mouths shut about it.
Glass, and future products like it, represents an incredible opportunity for any state actor to spy on every one, whenever they want. As such, I won't be wearing one and will insist that anyone doing such put them in a bag when I'm around.
I think its about time that attorneys become certified as to the specific areas of the law they are allowed to argue over. If it's a tech case then the attorney should have a cert stating they actually know what a bleeping computer is.
Kind of like doctors. A general practitioner would likely be jailed for attempting to perform brain surgery. A lawyer without a certification in tech should be barred from even being in the room.
Re: Just WOW
Not sure if you are aware of this or not but being a white male, at least in 'merica, means you have been discriminated against based on your race and gender. Assuming you've ever applied for a job. It's federally mandated and called "Equal Opportunity". You might want to look that up.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015