* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6451 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"I have morality, passed onto me from my parents (who of course were religious), but appear to have successfully instilled that morality in my children without the need to refer to any religious doctrine."

Other than the bleating of the religiously privileged, I don't think most people presume that morality must by nature descend from religion. Plenty of agnostics and atheists out there who develop fine morals without religion. Plenty of religious folks who develop fine morals too.

And plenty of really ****ed up people who develop ****ed up morality (or no discernible morality) whilst being religious, agnostic or atheist.

I think that's a really important point to bring up. The separation of morality from the belief in a god/gods/lack thereof/waiting-on-evidence-either-way/etc. The questions of faith and morality really don't have anything to do with one another. Which is something that everyone who gets emotionally invested in these sorts of debates seems to forget.

Also: worth noting...

Belief in a deity or belief that a deity cannot exist is not really related to a need for a deity. I don't really believe in a deity (at least not in any way that any modern religion would recognize.) I believe one could exist, but this has no real world influence on my life.

Given the strength that faith (either in a deity existing or in one absolutely for sure not existing) has given some, I feel that i could use some faith, one way or another. I'm just too skeptical to believe in either possibility.

Similarly, I know plenty of people who believe in a deity who don't seem to need one. They just accept the existence of a deity like they do the existence of air or gravity. It has no effect or impact on them.

There's too much baggage in the theological packaging of deism. Most of us can't unpick one element from another because we, as humans, like to categorize and make everything into these nice neat little packages. If A, then B, C, D, E and F. Not always so. Or even mostly so.

But the most predominant portrayals get the mindshare.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

Seems to me the government managed to turn off non-digital television broadcasts just fine. I think some places no longer have analogue radio, etc. This would be no different, just with more of an edge because of national security.

No need for the government to pay anything unless there is a real chance the voters will choose to get uppity over some money instead of buying into "think of the children".

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

"no more than baldness is a belief that hair does not exist. There is no desperation in disinterest"

1) Baldness can be empirically proven. The lack of existence of a deity cannot.

2) Disinterest in the existence or not of a deity would generally leave open the possibility for either. That's agnosticism. Atheism requires that faith in the non-existence of a deity be employed, as there is no evidence a deity doesn't exist. Mere apathy would be open to any possibility, because there isn't any motivation or requirement to develop a belief one way or another.

There may not be desperation in disinterest regarding the existence of a deity, but there absolutely is in asserting the impossibility of same.

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: skelband: "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief."

@Schultz: and I must disagree with you. It is not rational to believe that just because something has not been measured yet that it cannot or will not be. In fact, there's all sorts of evidence in the history of scientific discovery that says exactly this attitude is destructive. (For one thing, it has lead to the "science progresses funeral by funeral" problem.)

We'll leave perception out of the debate as we would then have to bear in mind how many people perceive some deity or another. And we'd have to examine the validity (or invalidity) of human perception.

It is far more rational to approach the unknown with an open mind than a closed one. We have no proof that there is a god. We have no proof that there isn't. So the possibility exists of either being true.

Do not conflate possibility with probability. It is rational to have lots of debates about the probability of the existence of a deity. But "it doesn't exist because it has not yet been measured"? That's faith. No different from any religion.

5
6
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Encryption doesn't kill

Birth control?

BAN IT!

Abortion?

BAN IT!

Gay marriage?

BAN IT!

Guns?

Look, banning things never works. People will find ways to get them.

10
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is not relevant to politics

You can't backdoor encryption, but you can key escrow. That's a function of money and bureaucracy, not mathematics. Anyone using encryption where the key isn't in the system is a criminal and gets banged up for it. For minor offenses it's probably a fine and/or 5 years in jail, just like possessing marijuana. But if you use it in conjunction with a crime they'll use it to send you up a creek for good.

Don't confuse "can't stop everyone, all of the time" with an inability to regulate and criminalize. The technology exists to regulate encryption and prosecute those who choose to violate the new laws.

Remember: the government has no problems making all of us buy new computers/phones/etc. Give it a 5 year grace period and sure as shit, they'd feel perfectly okay banning any un-escrowed encryption and fining/jailing those who don't comply.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

@hplasm

Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence. Nor are they open minded enough to allow for the possibility. But they need to believe that there isn't one.

And fair enough. That's their shout. I have no problem with that. But it is no more rational than the need to believe that one exists.

And yes, you know what, it absolutely is a belief. Short of certain types of mathematical proofs everything in human experience is based on belief. Shit, what you see as the colour "blue" isn't what I see as the colour "blue", but we all believe we know what "blue" looks like.

Or, most of us do. Some of us understand the malleability of human perception, but then we not only are talking about a slim minority, but those people also tend to get very meta about their thinking very fast.

Humans need belied. Belief is certainty. It doesn't have to be huge. It can be as simple as "I saw Bob at the bagel shop yesterday". Our memory is fallible. It could have been Bob, it could have not been Bob. Unless there's camera footage showing you seeing Bob there's really no reason to be sure you saw Bob...but we can't live every moment of every day with that kind of uncertainty about everything. So we believe we saw Bob. Even those of us who know how flawed human memory is, because these beliefs make life easier.

Now, getting on to bigger things - a god, no god, multiple gods - this is one more time all really related to our emotional well being. Some people need to believe in a god for various reasons. Forgiveness, "it's not really my fault", some reason to self-flagellate...who knows? It's different for everyone.

Some people need to believe in an afterlife - this is separate from a belief in a god, but usually intertwined. Some people need to believe both aren't possible. Some don't know what do believe and just don't care.

But yes, belief is everywhere in the human experience. We need it just to get through our day. Even if someone is agnostic about the existence of a god/gods or not doesn't make them capable of begin agnostic about everything. Similarly, no human has even been found to ardently believe that everything they can't prove doesn't exist.

Our sanity is based on our ability to believe. In the small things and sometime in the large.

And despite your claims otherwise, coercion can indeed change belief. So true is this that there are multiple sciences dedicated to refining techniques in this regard. All to many of them work shockingly well.

So what do you believe? And why? What drives those beliefs? What gave rise to that drive? And what do you require to change your beliefs? When have you changed them in the past?

Who are you, and why are you that person? What you strive to be and why? Beliefs are their driving motivations are laced up in all of it. Belief in something. Belief in the absence of something. Belief even in nothing at all.

Aren't people interesting?

4
20
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Dogma, by definition, is that which you must accept without argument."

Dogma is everywhere. Scientific as well as religious. Just because a text can be interpreted to contain dogma does not mean that, by definition it is dogma. How dogmatic - or not - a given text is really boils down to who is doing to the teaching and who is doing the listening.

I, for example, was raised with dogmatic science teachers and very liberal religious teachers. My Science teachers taught me to memorize by rote and never to question. My religious teachers taught me to think for myself.

You are interjecting your experience and worldview and claiming it as a truth. You are the dogmatic here, sir The world, in my experience at least, is a hell of a lot more complex that you're portraying it.

6
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"The difference isn't that important. The scientific approach is put everything on the 0.0 list until evidence moves it to the 99.999999 list."

No, that's not science. That's a religion based around science.

Science is a process and doesn't contain a judgment - implicit or explicit - about what should or should not be investigated, questioned, considered or believed.

Individuals make their own choices about what to believe based on some of the results of science. That is belief, not matter which sets of evidence that individual chooses to prioritize. The "scientific approach" doesn't exist. There is no such there. There are merely procedures that can help with gathering evidence.

Everything else is scientific consensus. You choose to believe in some, all or none of the various scientific consensuses, but your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence on various topics is still a belief.

And, statistically speaking, your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence available is probably wrong. Now, as to the evidence for your choices in belief likely being wrong, well...let's ask science...

3
10
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Atheism is not a belief at all. Strictly it is absence of belief"

Wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (or gods) and cannot be. If you accept that there might be then you aren't an athist. You're an agnostic. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing.

The distinction is fine, but very, very important.

"The rational position is that without evidence, we don't know anything at all, which is entirely at odds with the pre-suppositionalists which take a different starting point. This is the basis of the atheist standpoint."

Atheism presupposes knowledge. It presupposes that there is no deity and that there cannot be a deity. Agnosticism waits for the evidence, and doesn't try to say either way which is true.

Atheism is no more rational and theism.

7
24
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Blame Game

"Hey, Government, why can't you stop terrorism?"

Short of wiping out humanity, stopping terrorism isn't possible. To think otherwise is absurdly naive.

So long as humans have the capability to disagree with one another there will be some humans who disagree with the majority. So long as humans disagree with one another, there will be some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs. So long as there are some humans who choose to fight for their beliefs there will be some humans who are willing to kill for their beliefs.

If you want to nip that in the bud you must remove from humans the ability to disagree with one another. In doing so, you have removed from us our defining trait: independence of thought. What you've created at that point is no longer human. It is a separate species, quantitatively different from that which exists now.

The only way to stop terrorism is to end our species forever. Is that what you advocate?

9
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Magical Thinking

The powers that be have persisted in a destructive "war on drugs" for decades against the advice of experts. Why should this be different? So long as they can find one or two tame "experts" for every thousand experts that say they're wrong, they'll persist in the course they feel has the best chance of getting them elected.

The truth is not relevant to politics.

12
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: re. San Bernadino killings

Do you really think that matters in this debate? Not "should matter", but "actually does matter"?

8
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"We" is "society at large".

More specifically, "we" is "those of us who can vote, now or in the next election cycle" as this is when this particular topic will be decided for our generation. And probably for the one or two that come after us as well.

"We" need to talk about this. Amongst ourselves in smaller groups, in larger fora and yes, at the ballot box. "We" will be setting laws about this via our elected representatives here in the next few years. Civil disobedience via using outlawed software will only get individuals thrown in jail.

To be more blunt about this: the USA - amongst others - has proven via the "war on drugs" taht they have no problem whatsoever throwing a significant percentage of their population in jail for "crimes" (such as possession of personal amoutns of soft drugs like marijuana) that don't have an effect on society at large and don't pose a danger to anyone other than the individual being jailed.

Disobedience is more than reason enough for the powers that be to spend hundreds of billions of dollars jailing tens of millions of people.

If you care about this problem, then "you" needs to be part of "we" and "we" have to do something about it. Otherwise the "war on encryption" will replace the "war on drugs" as the new cash cow for the prison industry, and your open source VPN, IM or torrent client will be like a gigantic beacon pointing directly at you screaming "me! Me! Lock me up, I'm guilty of disobedience!"

And no, you won't be able to hide from them. Law enforcement agencies don't give up budget. With the war on drugs winding down, they need a new target.

Please help us ensure that those of us who think encryption is important aren't the not that target.

25
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Rational" is hard to define. There are a bunch of Randians who honestly and earnestly believe that altruism doesn't exist. They believe that everyone is selfism and that altruism is merely selfishness in disguise. I don't believe that. I believe selfishness and altruism to be two points along a spectrum and that human behaviors varies greatly along this spectrum depending on a combination of individual and circumstances.

Both the Randians and I can point to science that can be interpreted to back up our viewpoints.

So who is "rational" here? Who gets to determine "rational", especially when you are not even attempting to thinly veil your belief that "rational" equates to "correct"? (Or that "rational" means "what you, personally" believe, which you also seem to think is by default correct*.)

I can interpret the King James version of the Bible such that it demands extremism. I can also interpret it such that it demands love, caring and respect. I can do the same thing for pretty much every religious text out there.

I'm no fan of most religions, but what society needs to become less tolerant of is bigotry. Religion versus religion versus atheism versus yet more religion is pointless. why don't we work on "tolerating one another's differences", and work from there towards "celebrating one another's differences"? that makes for a much better world.

<sarcasm>In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me - rationally - why your form of bigotry is more "rational" than anyone else's. Maybe you can include how it makes the world a better place. This is the internet, after all, and we're all just dying to hear more about why we should hate one or more identifiable groups of people. It really helps build the world I - or most people - want to live in.</sarcasm>

And as for your "dogma is dogma" crack: you're full of shit. Religious texts aren't binary. They are documents that are interpreted to have personal meaning to each individual who studies them. You have no more right to tell anyone that a religious text must be interpreted in a binary fashion as any so-called religious leader.

The hypocrisy dripping off your posts is tangible.

*Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another.

18
14
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The 'moderates' make up the overwhelming number of believers in Islam. I'm pretty sure that it is the minority who get labeled "perversion" in just about any context. Just sayin'...

16
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The problem, really, is trust. Even if it were possible to build technologies that allow for law enforcement access (and something along the lines of mandatory key escrow might be doable, with a big enough bureaucracy,) there is no way that you'll convince me that our glorious leaders won't abuse that power.

Having spies spy on us in order to see if we've dark sided and are about to fly some planes into things? Okay, fine. But the instant they start using that capability to detect petty crimes (say, buying marijuana, copyright infringement for personal use, or grey market importation of goods) we're into a completely different world.

This is all of it - all of it - a question about the very principle of the presumption of innocence.

Our society only functions because - by and large - we ignore the petty, day-to-day crimes that we all commit. Each and every one of us breaks the law - knowingly or not - several times a day. If we could see every violation of every individual and chose to act on that, our entire way of life would collapse.

We couldn't reasonably prosecute everyone, several times a day. We couldn't expect people to live in fear all day every day that they might be fined or jailed for something they didn't even know was illegal. We cannot expect any citizen to know the totality of the laws in their own jurisdictions, let alone all jurisdictions they interact with digitally or physically.

How would we pay for it? Where does the money for those fines come from? The money for the lawyers, the judges, the jails?

This discussion is what is missing in this debate

Real world limits on the capabilities of spies. Limits on the sharing of information. Limits on what they will look for, what they will prosecute, how the information uncovered will be used. Real world consequences if those limits are worked around, loopholed or otherwise abused.

Maybe the ability to scan our communications is necessary in order to stop the Really Bad Things from happening. If this is the case, then before we even have a discussion about what compromises in technology we're willing to put up with in order to enable that, we need to have a VERY public discussion about how we're going to limit law enforcement use of those powers. FOREVER.

53
0

Russian "Pawn Storm" expands, rains hell on NATO, air-gapped PCs

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: How do you get the data out?

Well, by definition they wouldn't be "compatible with Windows and NTFS" in that they wouldn't be mountable by Windows. You would have to have code that read those filesystems and them mounted them. I don't know of any commercial ones off the top of my head, but I have written several in my day.

The keys to making it work are as follows:

1) Identify which blocks are currently marked as "not in use" by the primary file system. Write your data to those blocks.

2) Develop your filesystem such that you write the file metadata with the data. This allows the primary file system to overwrite blocks you have used and you can still extract data from the blocks that haven't been overwritten. This "store metadata with the data" trick is frequently used in today's object storage filesystems, and it is quite possible one of the open source ones could be modified for this purpose without too much effort.

3) Be very aware of the restrictions of writing to USB flash drives. Study Reduced Block Commands and do a lot of testing to make sure that you can reliably write to the blocks that are actually the ones identified by the file system as "not in use" instead of writing to the blocks as innumerate by the controller. Many USB devices are FAT aware and so actually lie to the FAT filesystem as part of their wear-levelling. (This is very rare, and only seen in really high-end stuff.)

Back in the day, when I tried to do this stuff, Truecrypt's hidden partitions barely worked on metal, let alone flash, so I rolled my own. Given that you can now "hide" Truecrypt partitions on things, I am sure that there is lots of code to look at which might show the "how" without having to go too "dark net".

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: How do you get the data out?

Why?

Hoover up all .doc, .pdf. ppt etc files with various keywords. Copy over all database files you can find. Anything that looks like it contains password info and encryption keys.

After that's done, copy over any .doc, .pdf .ppt files that didn't match your filters. If you still have space, copy over any encrypted files too. Do this all as copies to a shadow file system that the OS isn't aware of so nobody sees you filling up the drive. If someone copies something over then the OS overwrites some of the stuff your bots got. Oh well. The rest of it will get fired up to you ASAP and you recover what you can.

Anyone who has done data recovery from a crashed drive will probably begood at guessing what's important, even without seeing the system.

4
0

Windows Phone won't ever succeed, says IDC

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Did Microsoft forget to pay IDC this quarter?

45
2

Fujitsu CTO: Analysts might think we're 'crazy', but OpenStack here we come

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Helion Public cloud is closing. Helion private cloud is in fact doign quite well and finding more and more customers each quarter.

0
0

And the reasons for buying new IT gear are as follows ...

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Hah!

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: if you want to see long life equipment...

HP Laserjet II and LaserJet III+ models were the absolute pinnacle of printer design. Best damned printers mankind ever produced. Shame about everything since.

2
0

Target settles with banks for $40m after data breach

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

No, that is not the question.

The question is: did the individuals running the company make more money (in bonuses, etc) by doing IT wrong than they would have by doing IT right?

What is good for the company or its customers is not actually relevant in the company is run.

0
0

Per-core licences coming to Windows Server and System Center 2016

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

RedHat is not Linux

No, it's systemd.

9
1

Google cloud outage caused by failure that saw admins run it manually ... and fail

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oops!

Well, for one, you check to see if Charlie is advertising a route back to Bob. If both networks are willing to register connectivity to one another and have high reputation, you trust them. If, however, you have a record of someone else owning Charlie's block who not only does advertise their connectivity but participates in the reputation system and then Bob starts advertising about connectivity to Charlie that Charlie is in turn not also advertising about, you either fail to accept the route or you squash it all the way down the reputation system so that the slightest glitch means they get dropped.

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oops!

And they used to say "the internet routes round damage".

It has. Unfortunately the world's governments have been working hard to ensure that any overlay networks that ensure privacy and security not only are eventually compromised, but are illegal or outright blocked.

Trust is fundamental to the current internet. Unfortunately, trust is damage. Thus the fundamentals of the internet must be replaced or overlaid upon with network and protocol designs that don't require trust. The result, however, won't be anything like the internet of yore. The internet can't route around itself without becoming something altogether different.

And, quite frankly, that's a good thing. The internet should be a bastion of free speech and anonymity. A place where people can communicate without fear of surveillance. Only then can new ideas truly be explored and - ultimately - flourish.

Until then, the Internet is merely a means to give everything you are and have over to those who have proven repeatedly they will use all of it against you.

We really need an "International Industrial Espionage Day" where we educate people about how the internet is where governments laugh and play and surveil the innocent. Usually for economic benefit.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oops!

I understand my history just fine, thanks. I even understand the issues in transitioning from the old to the new.

Problem is, even new protocols being developed today rely on trust. The internet still relies utterly on people to behave with honour. People don't. Governments especially don't.

It is a pain to transition to a new architecture. It will take decades and billions of dollars. Tough. It needs done. Best to start down the path and get it over with.

Unfortunately, we're in the process instead of having the technocrats try to transition us to shit like IPv6. This doesn't benefit the individual in any way, but instead makes them even more vulnerable, traceable and exposed. Yes, I understand IPv6 is from the beforetime when chowderheads still believed in trust. But any attempts to actual solve the problems in IPv6 such that individual privacy is made paramount (or start a post-IPv6 transition that will move us to such a protocol) are simply shouted down.

The technocrats are obsessed with making life easy for developers. (See: end-to-end model obsession, amongst many other things.) Anything that requires a poor developer to load a few extra libraries and understand a little bit about network when designing an application is apparently such a cosmic problem that everyone else should be rendered tracable all the time.

And IPv6 is just one example.

The BGP issue can be solved by making two routing tables on the net. One secure and one insecure. BGP, of course, being insecure. Systems advertising along secure channels would have a multi-point reputation system. Some central registrar (preferably multiple, in different jurisdictions) would ensure that A) yes, the organization in question has the right to post routes and has agreed to play nice and B) owns X routes, and can advertise them as they wish.

If an organization tries to advertise routes on the secure channel that belong to someone else (which should be fairly easily traceable with the reputation system above) then those routes aren't accepted, and the reputation of the sender is demoted.

If there ever appear to be two "legitimate" owners of a route - which shouldn't happen, but does from time to time due to administrative screw-ups - then the providers with the highest reputation wins, until the issue is resolved.

BGP routes would then be considered as the lowest reputation routes. They will be accepted, but only if they are not overridden by a more reputable and verified source using the secure channel.

Oh look, we now have a transition mechanism. That was hard.

Yes, the reputation managers in this system would have many of the same flaws as certification authorities. This can be partially mitigated by having multiple reputation managers in multiple jurisdictions, making it hard (though admittedly not impossible) to compromise all of them.

We could also look at some sort of distributed reputation system (blockchain-based? It's all the rage!) that supplements the "canonical" reputation systems, but is based more on "number of times an advertiser has caused route problems".

Essentially the transition mechanism could be handled as something along the lines of a more advanced SPAM blacklist/greylist system, incorporating lessons learned from those attempts and giving ultimate priority to those advertisers who have done the leg work to get properly verified and whose ownership of a route can be confirmed through multiple sources.

Clearly, however, this is completely unworkable and impossible. Because reasons.

Trust is anathema to privacy and to security. Relying on it for anything is ridiculous.

1
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Oops!

To err is human. To really cock up requires a committee.

See: the design of pretty much every internet protocol since the beforetime. Anything that relies on trust is automatically a failure. Too bad techocrats never seem to understand that.

10
3

Wikimedia tries AI to catch bad edits

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Filter feeder

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill

0
0

London councils splurge wildly differing amounts on Oracle software

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: User count

I agree. Anyone paying Oracle or Microsoft to rob them is nonsense.

0
0

Safe Harbor solution not coming any time soon, says Dutch minister

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: No

@Moiety

If my name was Donald I would have it changed. The Donald has ruined it for everyone. Just like people with the last name Hitler changed their name, I would really think about not in any way ever being associated with "Donald" or "Trump" for several generations, at least.

At least Hitler didn't ruin "Adolf" as thoroughly as Trump has ruined "Donald".

3
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: No

So, EU. How do we get to a realistic set of guidelines that all the intelligence services might adhere to?

I hope not!

When spies in the EU break the law they can be held to account through the courts. When foreign spies break the law in the EU they cannot. That's the simple truth.

Is GHCQ violating EU human rights laws? Yes. Are they in court for it? Yes!

It might take decades, but the wheels of justice do and will turn. GHCQ, BND and all the others will be brought to heel. Probably just by the end of our lifetimes, but it will happen.

The US spies will never be brought to heel. Not by and for the benefit of their own people, but certainly not such that they grant the same legal rights to Europeans as Americans have...and give both parties the right to challenge the spying in a court of law.

That's the difference. It isn't about what can be made to happen today or tomorrow. The arguments of "well EU countries are doing the same thing" is aught but silly buggers and not only irrelevant to the discussion but missing the point of the exercise entirely.

This is about legal accountability. In the EU governments are legally obligated to be the servants of their people. People are not servants of their governments. Change takes time, and millions will be violated while that change unfolds...but it does fucking occur.

The US government is not accountable to the citizens of the EU. It is thus perfectly rational to deny them the ability (insomuch as it is possible) to violate the rights of EU citizens.

EU governments have the right to have the ability to violate the rights of EU citizens because if they do they can be held to account. It is an honour system that is flawed, but it is better than the complete fuck all that EU citizens have in the face of the Americans.

16
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: No

Does anybody really believe that Republicans like Donald and (insert any name...) actually represent the American people

I honestly and ardently believe that The Donald's batshit bannanas bigoted bullshit represents between 15% and 30% of the American people, depending on how you want to crunch the numbers (and a lot of smart people are doing just that, so the error bars will shrink with time.)

Unfortunately, these are passionate individuals who can and will vote. They are a power bloc that cannot and shout not be ignored. 50% - 60% of Americans are so apathetic they don't seem to care strongly about anything. They don't and won't vote and they spend more time mocking anyone who stands up for a firmly held belief than standing up for any belief of their own.

That leaves (depending on how you crunch the numbers) between 10% and 35% of Americans who care strongly about something other than The Donald's bigotry enough to combat him.

10% - 35% versus 15% - 30%. I really - really - don't like those odds, especially when amongst that 10%- 35% of people opposed to The Donald there are a largish number of establishment republicans.

So you know what? Yeah. The Donald and his gang of sociopathic nutjobs very well might represent America. Or, more accurately, they quite possibly represent the largest block of people who are not just completely apathetic.

America is best represented by a grime-stained t-shirt that says "meh, fuck it". Unfortunately for the rest of the world, you won't be giving a t-shirt personal command over nuclear fucking weapons. You'll be most likely handing that power over to someone who is horrible, horrifying and megalomaniacal. No matter which party happens to win.

Seriously, if you guys don't elect Bernie Sanders we're all pretty much fucked. Please don't screw us, America. Please.

13
2

IETF's older white men urged to tone it down

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"I take away from this the message that the proponents of this RFC value Identity politics and feelings over producing something that works."

How is that any worse than the current territorialism, penis measuring and blatant corporate self interest?

Either way, "producing something that works" is not the focus, and the majority of people are left out in the cold, their needs unmet.

7
7
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Who is John Galt?

Ayn Rand...gives many people the same bad aftertaste as the Idiocracy movie, but she wasn't wrong.

Fuck yes she was. In just about every way. Some people are very much like those she describes. Most aren't. Unfortunately, the people who follow her philosophy A) believe everyone else is "just like them" (massively false) and B) tend to gravitate towards positions of power where they can do the most amount of damage to the largest number of people.

Ayn Rand's teaching are how you raise monsters. You take people who are already bordering on sociopaths and then you provide them excuses for their malignant, bigoted neuroses and a convenient scapegoat in the form of "under it all, everyone is actually just as horrible as me".

Now, don't get me wrong, I loathe the SWJ "blame and shame" approach to life too. (It's very Protestant, when you think about it.) But those nutters are merely the flip side of the coin. Ayn Rand's self-centered bigot brigade on one side and SJWs on the other.

The majority of humanity doesn't belong to either camp. Life isn't so easily reductionist that everyone neatly fits into one of the two boxes. We're really complex creatures. Neither fully altruistic nor fully selfish. Which is probably why most of resist either extreme trying to make us into a pure version of one end of a spectrum. Any spectrum.

Ayn Rand. Oy vey.

22
3
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

This could be a very good thing.

I hope it helps reduce the tendency towards quasi-religious "technical" arguments that favour one group of technologists or use cases over all others. Maybe we'll even see an acknowledgement by the IETF that vendors can't be counted on to play nice. They won't deploy patches, updates or new protocols just because the technocrats agreed upon them.

Vendors, service providers and so forth willl wring every last dollar possible out of what they have. Similarly, consumers and SMBs want 10 year lifespans (at least!) for their equipment.

For me it would be nice to see people who champion the idea that "that just because money is essentially free to academia and the large enterprise world doesn't mean it is to the rest of us" aren't mocked, ridiculed, berated, shamed and ultimately forced out. I realize that's a pipe dream, but it is my dream of inclusion and consideration regarding the IETF.

In the meantime, let's get any diversity possible going at the IETF. New ideas. New approaches. New people. Go forth, technocrats, and diversify!

4
3

Microsoft whips out PowerApps – now your Pointy Haired Boss can write software, too!

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Anyone remember Frontpage?

"Good pay doesn't generate experienced developers"

Experience generates a demand from developers for good pay.

Treating them like shit and not meeting their pay demands encourages them to seek employment elsewhere.

But please, go run your little company in the belief that you can always win with the worst paid people. I'll enjoy your bankruptcy.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Anyone remember Frontpage?

"I have personally never met a truly talented IT person of the type I recruit (developer or otherwise) who left the IT field to do something else more profitable."

Then you haven't met a lot of people. I can point you at well over a thousand top-flight nerds who've left the field for something more profitable. Most of them into management. Some into jobs that are only equally as profitable but where the hours are far more flexible and they have way less stress. (This was a route I took, though I would be among the least qualified of the group I am talking about.)

There comes a point where $200k is just not worth the misery that comes with the job. Especially when you can get $200k just about anywhere else for far less effort.

Skilled developers are a dime a dozen. And if I am perfectly honest, the skilled developers never really stop being developers: they continue writing programs all the time, but they stop doing it for corporate overlords.

Those developers might become management or marketing or what-have-you, but they then contribute to open source, or write things that amuse them or they transition to infosec, using their skills for hacking.

Ahhh, infosec. Infosec absorbs good developers like a black hole accreting matter. If you are, in fact, a skilled developer you can take you $100k salary and make it $250k over night. A $250k developer can be a $1M infosec nerd in few months.

So sorry, mate. If you honestly think that skilled developers - or even mediocre ones! - stick with the punitive position of "corporate bitch" for overlong, we have some very different definitions of skilled.

1
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Anyone remember Frontpage?

The entire idea that there "aren't enough developers" is horse manure. There are a functionally unlimited supply, many of them trained, experienced and idle. The problem is that nobody wants to pay them a living wage or provide humane working conditions. So the developers leave the field and go elsewhere.

The new developers brought in to replace them aren't as experienced. They are willing to work for peanuts at first, but realize quickly that living with 12 room mates in a 3 bedroom that's 400sq ft is asstastic and they go do something more profitable.

If you want more quality coders pay their rates. Otherwise you get commodity software developed by commodity developers.

11
1

Blighty competition watchdog pokes pointy finger into cloud storage

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Why do they do it?

That will work really well once your house is on fire. And that isn't one disk, is it? It's two.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Why do they do it?

If your data does not exist in at least two places then it does not exist.

1
1

Is it a Loon or is it a drone? Google seeks experimental radio license in US

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Google used to be a search engine...

Microsoft and Hollywood haven't made a religion out of turning Verizon into a boogyman. That's how.

0
0

HTTPSohopeless: 26,000 Telstra Cisco boxen open to device hijacking

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Cisco: a trustworthy member of the IT community.

3
0

Russian nuke plant operator to build on-site data centre

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: So?

Today's nuclear waste is tomorrow's nuclear fuel.

17
0

MPs and peers have just weeks to eyeball UK gov's super-snoop bid

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"I thought that one of the roles of the judiciary is to give protection from abuse of political powers."

You're pretty old, aren't you? The role of the judiciary is to protect the political class from dissidents.

6
1

HPE to open private London drinking club

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Ale or GTFO

If all you drink is that liquid bread shite then who'd want you?

Lager all the way.

0
1

North Korea is capable of pwning Sony. Whether it did is another matter

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Complete invulnerability?

I can think of a dozen different "properly configured" VPN implementations I can crack. So that sort of puts paid to your very bad design.

Eggshell computing is a horrible, horrible, horrible security design. You are wrong and you should feel bad.

2
0

Green rectangles are the new rounded rectangles

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

WTF

"transformative, flexible and agile as we are becoming, while standing out from the pack"

Was "everything else was taken" somehow not an acceptable response? It makes me physically ill that anyone got paid to come up with this bullshit, and I work with marketdroids 8 hours a day.

I came up with a logo for my company when we started. It is an albino bristlenose plecostomus. When asked, I can and do give honest reasons why. Namely:

1) I like bristlenosers. I think they're cute. They have a lot of personality and their antics in a community tank make me smile.

2) Almost nobody knows what it is, so it's a great conversation starter.

3) Pleco!

But seriously, HP? It's a rectangle. A rectangle. How the metric fuck is it "agile" or "flexible"? And how in the name of His Noodly Self is it "transformative"?

That someone got paid for this....RAWRGFRAGLEBALRGERG....

16
0

Forums