Microsoft Windows no longer excites a vision of the future..
..but nostalgia for the past.
That's when you know a companies' product is past its sell-by date.
1323 posts • joined 28 Jun 2011
..but nostalgia for the past.
That's when you know a companies' product is past its sell-by date.
Have you ever voted a member of the UN out of office?
Oh, and there is a considerable amount of evidence that the UN, if not conceived as such, has become something akin to a communist plot.
Fortunately it is entirely lacking in competence.
Human body temp is 38.4C. If the air temp is above that we need to sweat to cool. If the humidity rises we cant use that and the only effective way is to radiate and that means black skin.
And even that fails at temperatures much above 40C with 100% humidity.
Human beings evolved to fill a tropical savannah climate niche,. Technology, from clothes to aircon and nuclear power, is what allows us to live beyond that niche.
There isn't a problem with that, so long as the technology is sustainable.
Green technology is not. The Big Lie is to claim its the only one that is.
(Try making concrete with windmill or solar power...and then work out how many windmills it takes to build a windmill)
The Sahara's problem is aridity.
Is that why the article mentions high humidity as a major issue then?
No, you want to take them to task and then hold them responsible...
Energy density is close to hydrocarbon fuels weight for weight.
No, this is not another magic battery technology, it's a small but highly significant step in the ONLY - I repeat ONLY - electrochemical battery technology that has a cat's chance in hell of competing with hydrocarbon fuels effectively.
Lithium air has been like fusion - theoretically the energy is all there, but in practice building a practical battery has been nigh on impossible. This take the impossible to 'pretty hard and currently expensive'.
Which is a step closer to 'cheap as chips, stable and long lasting'.
Well that is a moot point - of course she is very representative of society - venal incompetent and overweight - but are these qualities you want in a CEO?
Yup. Baroness Hardup of Petherton, no less.
Oxford PPE. so absolutely one of the chaps, and absolutely clueless about technology, like Cameron et al.
Born on a pig farm and likes horses apparently.
Why do you think Acorn made the ARM ?
From someone who was there...
"Because we couldn't afford the silicon for CISC and had to do it with as simple hardware as was possible at the price we could afford"
And didn't he/she do well..
Its a tough call. Frying pans and fires..
For a moment I remembered De Lorean..
Many people in the biz called it 'sequel' I think they are all ex mainframe/mini bods that did in my experience,
Still Dildo hardup has committed the basic sin of not being properly briefed by
her staff the BOFH.
Or perhaps she was...wouldn't be the first time the techies have put one over the beancounter-in-chief.
Yup. As in something like that.
Because web site design is done by 'creatives' using 'frameworks'
'Doing a Ratner' passed into the language.
I wonder of 'doing a Dildo' will, as well....
No, it's callled 'due diligence'. ;)
Filesystem encryption is only useful to prevent unauthorised access to data on a physical storage device or clone, so useless for a logged in user. Proper database encryption is not coarse database file encryption, because it needs to be user permission based.
We are talking record encryption.
Specifically the credit card records would be prime choice.
You can even hash that with the user password or some unique customer linked key to avoid the ability to decrypt all the records, even if you have the credentials to decrypt one.
If I go into my bank, they still need MY password to access MY records.
As well as THEIR passwords to log into the system at all.
You are simply wrong.
Credentials give you access to your won data.
Not the entire database.
Neither does the ability to decrypt a single record using an application function imply the ability to decrypt an entire database.
There seems to be a series of deliberately ignorant trolls/shills spreading false information here in an attempt to make talktalks position tenable. It is simply not.
I have implemented encrypted database tables and records precisely because I feared the loss of the entire database via - amongst other things - sql injection, although the way the application is designed that is unlikely to work - I certainly left no holes open that I was aware of.
And SQL injection is one of those types of loss. It protects against the loss of raw database data.
Unless the decryption is carried out, not by the application, but by the database itself, there is no way an SQL injection attack can reveal the plain text of encrypted data.
Those that say in a silly hand wavy way that 'because the application can decrypt the data, and the attack used the application, therefore encryption is useless' betray an alarming depth of ignorance into how such applications and attacks work.
by SQL injection?
Unless they were - gasp - stored in the database...
I was feeling pretty contemptuous of Talktalks management until I read the plethora of ignorance in these posts here.
It seems that virtually no one in the IT business understands how to make a website secure, either.
SQL injection actually is rertieving data NOT by the applications as it was designed to run, but via a flaw in it. That flaw would not have invoked the decryption if that had been present.
That is if you manage to tack onto a form variable that is not checked for it the string '; select * from credit_cards' you make get the entire credit card database, but not in an unencrypted form.
You are assuming that the encryption is somehow inside of the SQL server. It shouldn't be there. It should be in the application, so that direct access to the database does not return unencrypted data. Encrypting a database but having sql return an unencrypted format is not security, its lunacy.
Well all you are saying is the average level of security on most sites is total pants.
I've written several that are, simply because of certain isues pertaining to those sites that made it possible that entire databases might be stolen by e.g. sysdadmjns responsible for the server infrastructure, or in one case where a portable database was carried around on a ;laptop. In the latter case we split the database from the application using a USB drive so that even if the laptop went AWOL with the encryption keys, the database would not. And vuice versa.
Given that SQL injectins is something that no competent programmer should have left the possibility for, in this case encrypted data clearly would have prevented critical information from becoming public.
Those that have suggested that encryption would not have helped seem to have no idea how a website built over a database actually works, or what sql injection is.
Hacking is not 'using the correct credentials;'
I have implemented several websites that store sensitive information, The scripts that allow 'correct credentials' to extract pertinent information do NOT allow global access to all information. Because the strictly limited SQL queries are built into the scripts., And the keys are stored outside the scripts themselves so that even if the scripts are compromised, they cannot be run successfully on another machine against a stolen encrypted database.
In order to extract data from a database encrypted in this way you need all three elements to be accessible - the database, the scripts showing how the keys are used to decrypt it, and the keys themselves.
To get all three you need to root the machine,. SQL injection will not help.
..does not automatically invalidate any points they make.
And any argument that says 'if you dont like the experience you get, spend (more) money with somneone else' is a valid point of view.
I pay 2-3 times the 'consumer' rate for my broadband, but I get the QOS and the lack of contention and the speed of e.g. skype/voip transmissions that I want.
And possibly criminal negligence. Not accessories, unless the code was deliberately written to be hacked
Just because there is a way to access the data, doesn't invalidate encrypting it. I.e. the ability to access your OWN data does not mean you can access everyone elses.
What good encryption does is to ensure that someone who copies the entire database alone cannot get access to reams of data.
However there is a downside to encrypting all of the customer data. SQL queries no longer work on fields that are encrypted.
And if you build the ability to search the encrypted database into the SQL level, then once again you are vulnerable to SQL injection.
The point is really whether the database itself is compromised, or the code that accesses it.
If the database is compromised but the codebase is secure, then keys in the code are secure, and the database is worthless.
It is even possible to locate the key somewhere else in a hidden file so that even if the code is known, the key is not.
Nothing is secure on a rooted machine, but a lot can be made secure on a machine that is not rooted. But is still hacked.
The point about SQL injection is that it exposes some or all of the tables, not the code base or the machines total file system
"the most "leet" hacker was portrayed as a fat, single loner who lived with his mother in the family basement (Kevin Smith)."
Check out the guy in 'Girl with a dragon tattoo' series - apart from Lisbet of course.
"McGee, hack in to the CIA for me". (14 seconds later) "Done Boss."
That's because McGee is such a keen nerd he already has backdoors installed into the entire US administration security and crime prevention networks ;)
Wealth has long since ceased to be the accumulation of past generations of labour. That is the whole point.
Wealth is low entropy organization. It used to be made by 'renewable' energy assisted by man's intellect, and sometimes constructed with human energy, but it hasn't been since the start of the industrial revolution.
Wealth now is artificially assisted energy storage. Either to create an artefact like a house or a computer, where stability and organisation is the main goal, or to create food where energy content is the goal.
Today, with robots displacing the lower two thirds of the labour market already, the huge mistakes being made by those who cling to Marxists interpretations of the economy, are the most real and present danger to the West. When Marx wrote his polemic, vast quantities of low skilled labour ran the productive economy and it dominated the nascent service sector.
Today Robots do what Marx's 'labour' did, and we are all capitalists now. If you own a dishwasher, vacuum cleaner or a tumble drier or washing machine, you are using capital to displace labour in your home.
And that has taken us to a point of crisis: Fundamentally the wealth we utilise and consume (depending on whether its fixed asset or consumable) can be, and is, created by a vanishingly small number of humans, and rather a lot of energy. The rest of the human beings are totally and utterly unneeded and unnecessary in that process of production.
The only humans still needed are those that design and program the robots, and handle the bureaucracy of capitalism.
BOFH is not a joke. we, the IT crowd, actually control the new world.
And do you know? I think if we exercised our power and controlled it properly, we would do a better job than politicians and economists...
And the first thing we need to do is to understand that there is, except in the case of IT professionals, no relationship between material worth to society and income.
Just because someone is utterly useless and unproductive doesn't mean they don't (or indeed do) deserve an income of any given level.
The presumed goal of advanced roboticisation of society is to eliminate work as the primary occupation of human beings, The leisured society.
This ought to be a highly desired and desirable state, but both Left and Right are raising their hands in (faux) horror at the spectre of high structural 'unemployment'.
And yet the answers are all there. To increase the personal wealth of everybody means letting capital displace labour, and generate as much wealth for as little energy input as possible, and if that means people staying at home or playing football in the park instead of rushing mindlessly round the M25 trying to sell more crap to each other than anyone needs, so be it.
Then the job of the 'new socialist' becomes working out how much of that wealth should be distributed to the idle, not very rich.
We should not denigrate 'benefits culture' - we should celebrate it. WE should extend it to everyone. A Universal pension to anyone who can prove they were born in this country (and absolutely nothing to those who were not) would ensure a guilt free life of idle pleasure for all.
Toss in loss of income to those who have more than two children, and you limit populations levels naturally.
Run the whole lot off about 50 nuclear power plants, and you have a golden age within reach, and we could then start to concentrate not on keeping peoples physical wants satisfied, but exploring the reason why even with so much stuff, people are still amazingly miserable.
If you are only using the platform to do one thing, stream video at obscene speeds, its pretty easy to patch up the security.
That is not the same as moving it to user space for a general purpose toy desktop.
years ago I had occasion to trace a keypress from the interrupt service routine that handled it all the way through DOS 2.2
It was several thousand instructions before it appeared to the application.
Some like keyboard mapping, were valid. Others appeared utterly arbitrary and left over from legacy code.
Not hypocrites, just large and with various bits that dont talk to other bits
Who decides which third that is?
I remember the days of 6 transistor, 7 transistor, and yea, even 8 transistor radios.
One of them being a RF demodulation diode, and another simply soldered to the board, but left unconnected to the circuitry.
Of course enlightened self interest is some form of social conscience.
The problem is when you set in motion a system that practices mushroom management from the cradle to the grave, you don't get good people at the top.
Not until democracy - universal equivalent suffrage - is destroyed, anyway.
Er no. Actually they don't they aren't and they don't.
Not modern ones.
Broadly speaking,. yes.
NOx is rare in the atmosphere because its highly reactive, and having it in the air is something we are not adapted to.
CO2 exists in small quantities because its not very reactive. Oxygen is reactive, but its always being produced.
Greenpeace is led by very cynical men and funded by even more cynical interests.
Don't confuse te real hippies - like Patrick Moore who founded it - with the career environmentalists who are taking the corporate coin to lobby for overpriced monopoly supply of energy.
The Left infiltrated eco politics years ago, and were bought out post 1990 by serious corporate interest.
Eco politics is as corrupt as any other form.
Well yes they do, but the catalytic converters fitted to cars are not designed to pull nitrogen oxides out. They are deigned to pull out CO and hydrocarbons
I dont even understand that since the earth is fundamentally constructed of nuclear waste anyway.
No. Not directly. Diesels are ultra lean burn high temperature high compressions engines and this is what makes them a bit harmful with respect to nitride production.
On petrol engines lean burn is generally sacrificed for this reason, leaving the catalyst to soak up any spare carbon compounds in the exhaust.
Fuel efficiency sadly seems to go with high NOx production.
Maybe feeding pure oxygen into the engine would helpp ;-)
The statement appears to be a complete straw man.
It is irrelevant who does the testing, as long as the software knows its being tested.
My knowledge is far from exhaustive (sic!) but on diesel, you maintain a constant air input and modulate the fuel, if its non turbo, and a bit more complex but similar if its blown.
What that means is that the cruise and low power mixture becomes extraordinarily weak. Rather than the full throttle mix rather rich (although that too is a feature of older non turbo diesels that smoke under hard acceleration).
The problems AIUI is that ultra lean burn is desperately good for fuel efficiency and particulate emissions as everything gets burnt, but desperately bad for NOx emissions as even the nitrogen gets 'burnt' ...And there is no currently deployable technological quick fix way out of that. Up the fuel ratio to 'cool' the burn and richen it and you will see more smoke and unburnt fuel.
I am wondering what the implications would be of 11 million cars that can never meet the US emissions regulations.
I don't have a smart phone, tablet, don't use a public cloud, tweet on twitter, or have a facebook or Linkedin presence.
And use a relative bare Linux on my desktops.
Indeed If diameter increases at a linear rate volume increase as the cube law of that.
Well yes, these cars certainly are not green yet.
But innovation tends to come in at the top end, and trickle down to the average joes as it stabilises and mass production kicks in.
What these cars are are development testbeds for hybrid, electric, battery, charge technology, regen braking etc etc.
Selling them to greenwashers at inflated prices is just the marketing.
And in any case, there is definite evidence the excess CO2 is greening the planet a bit, so actually the gas guzzling V8 is probably greener anyway. ;-)
No. dB is also a unit of acoustic energy.
Nah, that doesn't stack up either., A modern jet cruising at 20k feet plus is silent on the ground. A train is not.
Its only takeoff power that is the problem near the airport.