Re: Robo-callers, from Florida, selling time-shares?
Preferably leading to the public executions of the entire board of directors.
1845 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Preferably leading to the public executions of the entire board of directors.
I can assure you, we will NEVER migrate to using cloud or all the rentism that it entails. We've already moved our entire office over to using LibreOffice because we refuse to have our work held to ransom by Microsoft's Office365 "pay whatever we demand per month or lose access to your work"
business theft model. Our art department is also migrating to open-source software very nicely, albeit with some gripes from the old-timers who prefer Photoshop and InDesign over GIMP and Scribus.
Our work will never be held to ransom by cloud service providers, and I'm certain we're not alone in thinking this whole rentism bullshit is completely unacceptable. No amount of propaganda-spewing cloud salesmen will ever convince me otherwise, no matter what psychological manipulation shenanigans they try to pull. NO MEANS NO.
"Security = out of date technology."
Yep, this. With the recent spate of ransomware attacks, given the fact that ransomware silently encrypts and decrypts files for a long period before locking you out and demanding the ransom (so as to encrypt backups as well) my colleagues asked me how we could ascertain if we were infected with ransomware, given that it's indetectable until it triggers.
My response was to set up an old Windows 98 machine (because it lacks the NT kernel modern malware requires to work) not connected to any network, and to have everyone in the office save a text file onto a thumb drive and try to read it on the '98 machine. If it can't because the file has been silently encrypted and the malware can't install itself on the '98 machine to disguise this fact, we know we've been infected and can begin recovery procedures.
So far we haven't been, mainly because I've promised to go Ramsay Bolton on the arse of anyone I catch clicking a link in an email, opening an attachment or plugging an unauthorised USB stick into our system!
Well, given that everyone I know, including even my ultra-law-abiding parents, are now hooked up to VPNs (predominantly Private Internet Access) and use them pretty much all the time, much good may it do Abbott and Co to spy on us. What's even funnier is that by enacting intrusive data retention laws that made everyone in this country jump onto the VPN bandwagon, the Abbott government has effectively also hobbled its internet filter as well. Our politicians are so incompetent they can't even oppress their own people efficiently!
It's called clickbait.
It worked on me too. I thought it would be some feminist ranting about the patriarchy raping women with thermostats, so I came in here spoiling for a fight. But no, it's just commentary about men and women reacting differently to office temperatures. But a headline like that made me look, and made you look, and made us both comment, so it did its job. Clickbait.
do you do an entire article and 2 pages with 64 comments about the world's worst movies, and not have a single mention of Uwe Boll's or M. Night Shyamalan's names anywhere?
I suppose the only valid explanation for this omission is that their movies are so brain-burstingly bad, that the memory-erasure survival mechanism alluded to by multiple commenters here has completely deleted any such experience of these two producers' movies from everyone's minds.
If you want to piss all over the democratic process, take direct control of legislative and governmental processes, and turn your democracy into plutocracy:
1. Wait until a government passes a law or regulation that pisses off the tolerance crowd.
2. Threaten sanctions against said government unless it falls into line with the demands of said tolerance crowd.
3. Smear anyone who calls out this attempted political takeover as racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobe/xenophobe/[insert PC buzzword of choice]/etc.
4. Enjoy the political precedent you've set in the popular consciousness that big corporations are the good guys and should be allowed, nay encouraged, to meddle in political processes.
Nah, just be honest and make a law that states that any creative work released at or after the creation of Mickey Mouse remains in copyright until the heat death of the universe. After all, that's what these ridiculous copyright extensions are really about.
And that's even assuming that the NSA of today doesn't eventually morph into the NSDAP of tomorrow.
Should've sued them in Texas!
So, about the same mileage costs as your average American SUV then.
Given that the Earth is rather larger than Mars, a quick desktop calculation shows that 26 miles is 1/819 of the way around Mars' circumference. Plugging that back into Earth's circumference means the equivalent coverage of Earth is about 48.9 miles. Still only a tiny percentage though!
"Don't worry. I tried to explain some benefits of cloud in another post and got downvoted. Genuinely don't know why."
Then let me explain cloud avoidance in simple layman's terms:
One, I don't control the box the data is stored in, and therefore who can get to it. Two, I don't want my data held to ransom for whatever monthly fee you choose to charge me to access it. Capiche?
there's the MAFIAA shill...
On the contrary - it marks it out as a company that has the guts and balls not to cave to the fucking Yanks and their bully-boy politics, and therefore marks it out as a company I should be pleased to do business with.
Movies portraying VR/AR in science fiction rarely, if ever, touched on the invasive corporate monitoring aspects of it, or if they did, they did so only the the most abstract sense. This is why the applications of face-recognition and metadata correlation seem to have taken everyone by surprise. It is this aspect, this misuse of the technology and not the technology itself, that brought about the global hostility to Glass.
It's not just that Glass was a wearable semi-hidden camera; it was the face-recognition software behind the camera and the fact of Google tracking everyone though it that was the main driver of opposition against it. Had corporations like Google NOT pursued this "we want to spy on everything you do so we can discover all your psychological weaknesses and exploit them for profit" mentality, had the Glass device used only local storage and allowed the user to control what data went where, I believe there would not have been such a hostile reaction.
Nobody likes to be spied on, no matter how noble the intentions of those doing the spying might be. Nobody likes to have their weaknesses probed so they can be more easily manipulated, especially when those doing the manipulating are solely interested in milking you for as much money as they can squeeze out of you. That's exactly what the marketing industry is all about - finding ways to bypass conscious decision-making processes in order to make people want to buy something.
And then there's the intelligence and police agencies, all scrambling for the delicious absolute surveillance and control this technology imposes, who are ostensibly there to protect us, but from what? They are there to enforce the laws, and that is all, and with the laws being less and less about mandating civilised behaviour and more and more about protecting the rich and increasing corporate profits at the expense of every other liberty we hold dear, who are those agencies really fighting for? Not our freedom, that's for sure. Not for a long time.
Everyone knows this, subconsciously if not consciously, and that is why any such technology will now be vigorously opposed no matter what form it takes. The technological utopias imagined by sci-fi authors aren't going to happen, not now, not ever. Corporate greed and intelligence-agency megalomania have seen to that.
I've long noted the the most bigoted misandrists are mainly men, and you're a prime example. I really hope you end up falsely accused of rape or molestation and have your fucking life ruined as you so richly deserve. Filthy PC suck-up cockroaches like you are the ones undermining real efforts to fight injustice, by causing people to backlash against genuine equality movements. Spewing bigoted male-hate like you are doing is exactly what makes people think wrongly that equal-rights movements are all about hating on whites and males instead of achieving real equality, and so they naturally fight back with even more bigotry.
So do the world a favour and just shut your fucking sanctimonious mouth, and let the reformers who actually possess more than one brain cell do their job. You aren't helping women or any other victims of injustice in your crusade to show how politically correct you are, and you're hampering real efforts to achieve equal treatment for everyone.
Nicely trolled David, you reeled in a right bagload, good job mate!
"Under the terms of Transatlantic trade treaty legislation Your law stops us from conducting our business in the way we (Americans ) want..."
Sounds like you fellas have been saddled with the same treasonous sellout of your national sovereignty to American corporations as we have here in Australia with the TPP. Any national government signing these fucking trade agreements should be collectively charged with high treason.
And America scratches its head and wonders why the rest of the world hates its fucking guts.
"Hi! I'm Johnnycab! Where can I take you tonight?"
"I can imagine the situation in which a fraudster meets someone in a bar..."
... and says "Hi, didn't we meet at blahblah last year," buys them a drink, and gets their fingerprints off the glass. And then uses it not just for accessing bank accounts, but for identity theft in general, since more and more organisations are relying on biometrics like fingerprints these days.
The problem then becomes obvious: biometrics can't be changed like stolen cards and tax file numbers. So once someone has your fingerprints, retina scans, voiceprint, whatever, and is using them to commit criminal acts, you're fucked for the rest of your life.
Never mind a sex change, these vermin incense me to the point where I want to advocate bringing back hanging, drawing and quartering.
" that botnet takedowns could only deliver a coup de grâce if bot masters were PUBLICLY executed."
There, fixed that for you again!
There's a reason why compromised hardware is a much bigger concern than TLAs sneaking agents into your executive structure.
Agents are expensive, and take a lot of effort to insert and maintain. The old adage about "for every sword raised at the front ten backs must bend in the field" applies equally in this case as well - for every agent in place, a support staff back at HQ has to be maintained to receive the agent's information, process it, and provide the agent with intel and orders.
So this would only be a concern for big players. I'd be surprised if there weren't various TLA agents at or near the top of corporations like Microsoft, Amazon, Google and even Cisco. But the chances of ASIO going to the trouble of inserting an agent into our little back-street SMB are vanishingly small.
Not so with hardware. Automated information processing is a far more serious threat to privacy, confidentiality and even liberty than any amount of manned spying, because it is far cheaper than manpower and a lot more global in scope.
Consider a parallel: face-recognition software vs. a room full of security bods at a CCTV control centre. Security bods can't watch everyone all the time; they have a list of photos of wanted criminals and scan the camera feeds for them, ignoring everyone else. But face-recognition software tracks everyone, everywhere, all the time. And all it has to store is the metadata: Citizen 17548923 identified via Camera 6485 at Lat 34°55'22.7" S Lon 138°35'58.9" E on 2015-03-07 06:33:45 UTC. So it isn't about having to keep years of AV footage - such metadata can easily be retained on everyone for many years simply because it reveals a lot without taking up much storage.
In the same way, hardware backdoors allowing remote software to regularly collect data means it doesn't matter if a human is looking at or using your information. Software analysis is a much greater threat than human observation, simply because it is orders of magnitude cheaper, more thorough, ubiquitous and far-reaching.
I thought Mars didn't have a magnetic field, which is essential to the formation of aurorae. Although if it does, I can see how the aurora would reach much deeper into the atmosphere than on Earth, since the aurorae can only occur in low-pressure, rarefied gases - and the Martian atmosphere is rarefied enough that an aurora could get much closer to the surface. That would be a sight to see for an astronaut on the ground! How interesting.
"That's 55 percent: a high figure, and could well point to the fact that the value of dot-coms is falling."
Not at all surprised that the value of dotcoms is still falling, and that's even since the dotcom bubble of the 90s. The
cybersquatters domain investors have only themselves to blame: people learned many years ago that searching for stuff on the internet by typing "<subject I'm interested in>.com" into the browser address bar was the worst possible way to do it, simply because such efforts invariably led to a parking page devoid of anything useful, offering the domain for sale - or more likely, some spammer's malware-ridden link farm.
These days, few people remember what or where the address bar even is; most people now simply type what they want into Google* and click the result links - or they follow links posted by their friends on Facebook. Consequently, the domain name is no longer as relevant as it used to be, and these days it doesn't matter if your company has to use something like thisisaverylongdomainnametotypeintoyourbrowseraddressbar.com, since the major driver of traffic now is search engine rank and social media referrals, not so much "accidental drive-by" traffic.
These days, you don't tell people to "point their browser" to your domain, you just tell them to "find us on Facebook" and link them to your site from there.
*How many times have you given someone a domain name only to see them type it into the search box instead of the address bar and then click the search result from there?
Until you move to a different company, or your employer changes policy and starts expecting employees to pay their own subs, or Adobe decides to jack up the pricing once it has everyone's work to ransom, and then one day you'll find that all your work for the past however-many-years is no longer accessible or editable. You might not find it such value for money then.
Enjoy. You'll learn. Most likely the hard way. But I, and I'm sure many others, would prefer it if you'd kindly not take the rest of us, who prefer to retain control of our own software assets and data, down with you by funding this execrable rentism business model.
Getting a site translated professionally is time-consuming and expensive. Getting some underpaid subaltern to whack your Asian-language website through Google Translate is much quicker and cheaper. And with the level of grammatical idiocy displayed by the majority of the English-speaking population, I doubt they lose much business due to the appalling grammar. Most of their customers are probably so used to badly-translated Asian sites that they no longer even notice.
"It's a sign of the times that commenters on a tech site should be concerned about how bugs in an experiment feel."
For me it's not so much about how the bugs might feel, but more about the dangerous slippery slope* that this kind of research and experimentation entails. Inevitably, research that starts with doing things to bugs, soon moves on to frogs, then rodents, then monkeys, and eventually human beings. And of course there are all kinds of justifications for it; in this case "search and rescue," a nice populist application to soothe the uneasiness that people feel about the idea of developing technology that allows people to directly control the actions of other living things. After all, if it's a case of a bug being used to save a life then what's wrong with it being a frog? Or a mouse? Or a monkey? Where does the justification stop?
Even if you say, well it would stop short of human beings, there is still the fact that if it can be done to a monkey, someone somewhere in the world will apply it to human beings, legally or illegally, regardless of legislative frameworks. What matters is not whether it will be done, what matters is simply that it can.
Furthermore, coupled with the advent of indetectable and invasive nanotechnology, this sort of thing has the potential to become something truly horrific. If you look at issues such as contemporary slavery, which is unfortunately prevalent even in supposedly free nations, you can begin to imagine some of the absolute horrors this kind of research could unleash.
For every worthwhile justification for such research, there are a dozen ways it can be misused. The question is, do the benefits it could confer outweigh the dangers represented by such research? This is the sort of thing that, like nuclear research, needs to be subject to strict controls imposed by an international regulatory body similar to the IAEA, and forcibly stopped the moment it advances to any creature more advanced than, say, a frog or a mouse - to ensure it can never be done to people.
*I find it interesting these days that the "slippery slope" argument is increasingly being dismissed as a logical fallacy alongside such expressions as "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority". I suspect this is a particularly nasty piece of social engineering being employed by certain elements of society to dismiss concerns about not only the misuse of technology, but such things as invasive surveillance and far-reaching police powers, etc. etc.
If my bank insisted on my using a particular browser to access its site, I'd be switching banks in a big hurry. Designing a site only for a particular browser implies non-standard design practices that would inevitably result in serious security vulnerabilities, even leaving aside the element of lack of choice.
I can say that we'll probably be running much the same tech as we are running now, and have been for the last 10 years.
Our main office server box is 2006 vintage, and had a motherboard and CPU upgrade in 2010. The office machines date from 2004 - 2009, the art room roughly the same period, albeit they had motherboard/CPU upgrades in 2012, and only one new art/design machine (an AMD 8-core) was purchased last year.
On the mobile front, we're using Toshiba laptops and Samsung Slates with Windows 7 circa 2012ish, and Galaxy S4s with Android circa 2013. (And we have one Apple iPad I'm ashamed to say, but that's solely used for testing to make sure our websites and ebooks work on iThings. We do have an elaborate office cleansing ritual for those forced to use it! ;) )
All of it does everything we need it to reliably, and everything is a known quantity that everyone knows how to use effectively.
With the flattening of Moore's law over the last several years (CPU power and storage sizes have stopped increasing exponentially), unless some earth-shattering new technology like holodecks or transhuman consciousness-uploading tech appears in the next 5 years, I can't see us using anything vastly different to what we're using today. Probably there'll be a few more minor hardware upgrades but that's abut it.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Let's hope the story does turn out to be an Arthur C. Clarke novel and not a George Orwell one.
"I don't like this expression 'First World Problems.' It is false and it is condescending. Yes, Nigerians struggle with floods or infant mortality. But these same Nigerians also deal with mundane and seemingly luxurious hassles. Connectivity issues on your BlackBerry, cost of car repair, how to sync your iPad, what brand of noodles to buy: Third World Problems.
All the silly stuff of life doesn't disappear just because you're black and live in a poorer country. People in the richer nations need a more robust sense of the lives being lived in the darker nations.
Here's a First World problem: the inability to see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology and pleasure as you are."
So you see, Hans, that while you might think you're being all sensitive and politically-correct by arguing to defer all other solutions in favour of eradicating poverty and starvation, in fact you are showing your ignorance and bigotry by assuming that people in Africa are only concerned with basic survival, rather than communication and wanting to be a part of the larger world.
The reason why that is in there is presumably because there is an assumption that one cannot imagine an internet without "google search".
Actually I made that qualification not because I can't imagine an internet without it, but because it's the one service they can't pull - it's their bread and butter. I personally use DuckDuckGo most of the time, but DDG's lack of tracking and search history is both a benefit and a pitfall. Sometimes I want localised results based on my search history and for that I go to Google. But yes, for everything else it's DDG.
My advice would be never to start using any Google service other than basic search for anything important in the first place. I learned years ago the perils of coming to rely on a Google service only to have it yanked out from under you a couple of years later. I'll never rely on them again.
Incidentally, I wonder how long it will be before they yank Google Analytics and a billion webmasters cry out in terror before being suddenly silenced. Notwithstanding that GA is already blocked by a host of privacy tools, that and Google's notorious unreliability, are why our websites use only our own in-house analytics code.
it's China. They have far too many people to be let loose on the roads as they are. If you've ever seen pictures of that new massive freeway they built, that at 250 km long, has since become the world's largest car park, you can understand why.
I think the main reasons businesses aren't upgrading are twofold:
1. Our systems work, they satisfy all our present and foreseeable needs, our staff know how to use everything and we can provide our customers with the level of service they've come to expect form us. If we upgrade, we have to retrain all our staff to use the new interfaces Microsoft have foisted on us and we have to iron all the bugs out of the new systems. Ours ain't broke, so we ain't gonna fix 'em.
2. RENTISM IS NOT A BUSINESS MODEL WE WILL EVER ACCEPT. We are not, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to be put in a position where we have to continuously pay every month to continue to use software we've already paid for once. Microsoft can stick their Office 365 rentism scheme sideways into the most painful orifice they can find on their worthless, greedy arseholes, because we are not going to be put in a position where they can hold all our work and data to ransom unless we pay whatever they demand every month to keep using it.
does this mean we're bigger than the Andromeda Galaxy now?
I've long considered Queensland to be Australia's answer to North Korea, ever since the Bjelke-Petersen days. What with his gerrymandering, their barely-shy-of-death-penalty marijuana laws, then their draconian if-you-know-a-bikie-you're-also-guilty laws, and now this, I have a sackful of very good reasons why I would never cross South Australia's northeastern border!
It will have to get a LOT worse than this before people rebel. North Korea stands as a stark example of the extent of oppressive conditions people are willing to tolerate without rebellion or revolution.
Remember the boiling frog analogy. I'm absolutely certain that if half the laws and legal practices we tolerate today, had been suddenly imposed all at once back in the 1970s, people would have stormed Parliament House the same way they did the Bastille in 1789. But because these laws have crept in one by one over many years, using safety/fear as justification, they've been able to impose conditions that would have been considered absolutely intolerable 40 years ago.
So I doubt very much there will ever be a revolution now, because the powers that be have the boiling frog technique worked out pat. What the future holds in my mind doesn't bear thinking about. I just live one day at a time hoping it doesn't get too bad before I shuffle off this mortal coil. At least with no children I don't have to be concerned about where civilisation goes after I'm gone.
I've never been asked this, but then I haven't been in the job market for a long time. But if I were, and I was asked to provide access to my private accounts at an interview, my response would be something along the lines of:
"Obviously I cannot give out that information. And in all honesty, what does it say of your company's attitude to IT security that you would even ask for such information and expect an answer? If I tell you, how could you trust that I wouldn't give out my login details to your company's systems in future if someone required it for whatever reason?"
If you want a vision of the horror that would be extended life under Google, have a gander at this Youtube video.
Although it deals with uploading your consciousness to a computer system rather than preserving your organic body, I have no doubt that the "terms and conditions" imposed by our corporate overlords in exchange for longevity would certainly follow similar patterns.
This is the modern equivalent of burning in hell for all eternity. The oblivion of death is paradise compared.
Yes, that would be why the Chinese government loves the idea of "cloud" so much - it makes the Ministry of Truth's job so much easier. Instead of having to recall and reissue thousands of copies of newspapers (or hard drives) revising BB's dayorder to show that Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania and not Eurasia, they only need to update the one cloud server and presto! it's automagically updated for everyone, and nobody can prove otherwise.
Actually, there is a good reason for posting AC.
The police may or may not read El Reg, but you can bet a lot of IT bosses do - and most of us here work in IT. Given that you can easily lose your job for stepping even an inch out of line these days, you have to confront the very real possibility that one of your workmates or bosses might be reading your comments here. Especially since said workmate or boss only has to click your name above your comment and they can read everything you've ever posted. Even if you're using a pseudonym, there's a good chance someone at your workplace can figure it out or might recognise it from somewhere.
So if you want to post something controversial without risking your job, you'd do it as AC, not to evade the police, but to evade your pointy-haired boss from telling you that "those opinions don't reflect the attitude of our company" and using it as an excuse to give you your marching orders.
Of course in my case I'm a partner in the company I work for, and I promote free and honest expression in our workplace, so this doesn't affect me or our people so much, but for many here it would be a very real danger.
In New Zealand we had FTTN completed in about 2010
That's because New Zealand doesn't consist of 8 million square kilometres of the kind of terrain one normally only encounters in Frank Herbert novels. Australia has a lot of peculiar issues when it comes to infrastructure, and I'm not at all surprised that the whole NBN project has gone awry; I knew it would the moment Labor first mooted it, simply because I know what this country is and what its environment does to man-made objects. I'd wager few, if any, of the high-living politicians mooting it from the comfort of their air-conditioned Sydney and Canberra offices, have ever actually ventured out into the Great Red Nothing that most of this continent consists of; if they've seen anything of it at all, it is most likely through the little window of an aircraft flying just under Mach 1 10 kilometres above it, and so it was inevitable that they'd grossly underestimate the problems and costs involved.
Even if we discounted connecting all the rural centres and gave each city its own satellite uplink instead of running cables all over countryside comparable to that of Arrakis, Australian cities are not like most others in the developed world. They sprawl out over a huge area, making it an expensive proposition to connect up each separate house. My own home city of Adelaide, for example, is geographically bigger than London, but has only 1/8 of the population. From this you can work out that the per-capita cost of hooking up a city the size of Adelaide would be more than 8 times that of London; since Adelaide's median income is definitely not 8 times that of the average Londoner, it's not at all surprising that we've had these difficulties, and in fact I find it amazing that we've achieved as much as we have!
All this law is doing is essentially extending existing harassment and abuse laws into the social media space. It's pretty specific that the material to be removed must be directly targeted at a particular Australian child before it can be the subject of a complaint - that is, it has to refer to or address an actual person, and consist of an attack on, or harassment of, said person.
I don't see any way in which, say, advocates of political correctness could use this law to take down anti-feminist or anti-progressive commentary, for example, since such commentary is generally not targeted at specific individuals. In fact, laws like this could well be used against such individuals, since the standard MO of PC advocates is to harass and attempt to smear and ruin the lives of those who disagree with them.
Facebook lynch-mobbing and the media-induced hounding of individuals for the sake of sensationalism has become a serious problem that needs to be addressed, and this law is a step in the right direction. Preventing targeted and directed harassment and abuse of individuals is not censorship. It's straightforward civilised behaviour.
"You appear to be attempting to equate paedophilia with homosexuality."
I was hoping you would be intelligent enough not to attempt to use that particular strawman to try to bolster your position. I guess I overestimated you. I should have known better, given the mindlessly Orwellian mentality you've been exhibiting.
No, I have not equated homosexuality with paedophilia at all. What I did was to examine the psychological mechanism behind fanaticism and denial. At no point did I draw any comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia, the only comparison I drew was in certain peoples' negative reactions to them and the reasons for said reactions.
I could just as easily have used a comparison with a fanatical Islamist wanting to ban bacon being a secret bacon-lover, or a rabid anti-smoker covering for her craving for a cancer stick, or a fanatical temperance-movement crusader trying to cope with his alcohol addiction, but in my ignorance of your sheer stupidity I chose to use the homosexual analogy instead. Silly me.