Is Andrew on holiday?
444 posts • joined 7 Mar 2012
Is Andrew on holiday?
Much obliged. That lead me to this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.2442v1.pdf which describes the setup. Very cool, at many levels.
A billion tonnes of ice is about a billion cubic meters which is about a cubic kilometre. And they have 5160 detectors, which is 193,000m³ per detector. If they're placed in a grid, that's about one every 58m.
Can anyone tell me what sort of detector can spot a flash from a single subatomic particle collision through 29m of solid ice? Presumablhy a CCD of some sort, like on a digital camera - these react to photons. But the photon has to hit the CCD, and at one per 193,000m³ the odds seem a bit thin.
I certainly hope you're a policeman. If not, you should move neighbourhoods.
> 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
So the police kill 3,500 people a year, and that's justifiable? Sweet Jesus. Roll on Megacity One.
That quote predates Hitchens by some time. The rest of your comment is a little over the top, and I say that as someone who was raised in the catholic church and detests it. There are some very rotten eggs, but there are many more decent individuals than bad (note I refer to the individuals, not the institution). A statement that applies equally to some of the other major world religions you may have seen in the news recently.
Amusing that you have to give your SS number and passport details, so they can ensure they're scrupulously honest in how they manage the obscene sums required to buy your way into a run for office. I imagine people of all political persuasions agreed with Bernie that campaign funding needed some serious reform.
"I'm not sorry I'm a racist, I'm only sorry you found out about it."
One of your earlier posts. Guess you're not sorry anymore.
Look up "Police By Consent". I know the UK police are far from perfect, but at least the intention is correct.
You cannot possibly be trying to find a way to justify the actions of this officer, can you? He shot a man who was following his instructions, four times, while he was not under threat.
Cops shot black people way more than white people. It's not a statistical aberration, it's not an accident, he wasn't asking for it and the fact some other idiot with a gun shot ten police officers doesn't change any of this one little bit.
You don't have to go through LAX more than a couple of times to realise "Sir" is a four letter word in America.
1. Have they tried using one AI against another AI ? Seems likely that using AI v AI would lead to stalemate.
They did, but it turned out the only way to win was not to play.
Ad agency: "we're thinking of building an app that would help people rescue refugees"
MOAS: "that sounds like a good idea"
Press release follows. Easy.
I see you're a yank, if you were in the UK you would see this sort of selective quoting and misrepresentation being currently played out on electoral posters all over Britain whenever the facts are deemed inconvenient.
Amen brother (er, sister). Virgin Media are my single biggest correspondent by a long shot, despite not being a customer. I tried sending them back return to sender, I tried calling and asking for removal. Nothing. If they can't manage that, they're never going to land me as a customer.
I broadly get your point but it's not as simple. Turkish, for instance, has the upper case version of "i" as "İ" - that's "Upper case dotted i", or U+0130.
To be fair this is the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but there might be others. You might roll your eyes at this (thank you, I'm here all week) but if you want case insensitivity in filenames, you have to specify the locale too.
Even better, the Nigel Farage voice pack will always advise you if <a href='http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/07/nigel-farage-blames-immigration-m4-traffic-ukip-reception">immigrants are blocking the M4</a>
Back again? I thought you'd been sectioned?
Thank you for pointing out usually overlooked fact that what is "best" depends on where in the world you are. Blanket statements without some sort of geographical reference point are going to be just plain wrong for a lot of people.
I'm a bit rusty on my corporate law, but I think a director is only personally liable if they have defrauded the company or done similar un-directorial acts. Receiving an "unexpected" quarter-million pound bill would shut a lot of small companies, and they would leave a lot of debt.
Whatever assets remain, you an be sure HMRC will get first dibs on them, and they do have a right to go after assets transferred away from the company to directors, shareholders or to linked companies/individuals immediately before insolvency too.
I'm not sure how much of this process will be part of the public record.
Again, a suitably motivated journalist might get some mileage from asking the ICO if they have been arsed to make such a report. I'd be interested to hear the answer.
I had a similar situation a few years ago, when I found my name and address listed in 118800 (another grubby bottom feeder, long since shut down). They'd bought my details from a middleman, Data Media And Research, a subsidiary of known all round good-guys The Daily Mail Group, who had got them from an online car insurance quote company - quotelinedirect.co.uk in this case.
Naturally they were adamant I had checked the "please email me bullshit offers" box, whereas I was sure I had not. Either way, if you've ever applied for insurance online there's a good chance that's where it came from.
A data protection letter is cheap to send and the response might make for interesting reading.
Just out of curiousity, I've done a bit of basic digging on this one. The director for the last two years until the time of liquidation was "Hassim Iqbal" - the company went into liquidation on 15 March. A man with the same name and birthdate (born March 1983) and the same service address is a director of three companies, none of which are in liquidation:
HS2 Medicals is wholly owned by Hayes Medicals, a medical claims company, who are at the same address as Pension Shield. They're on Linked In, and apparently work "closely with solicitors" on medical injury claims. Hayes Medicals was bought in 2012 by Aviya Group. I imagine a suitably motivated journalist would be able to ask some interesting questions of one of the Solicitors they work with about their connection.
Aviya Group have Mr Iqbal as a director, but not a shareholder. However they're clearly in the same line of business: here is a job advert posted by them for a familiar sounding role.
What a grubby little nest of vipers.
Another option on UNIX systems is to use tar and xz.
Ever tried to get PulseAudio working on a headless machine?
Currently the votes on your comment are 9 to 5. Coincidence? I think not.
Really? I have news for you. You ought to *really* examine US law, and you'll find that there are no real barriers for any random agency to get hold of that data once Google las gotten its hands on it
Before you go off the deep end, try actually reading the agreement from the original article.
Data will not be transferred outside the EEA. The NSA do not have free access to european data centres. If you believe that they do, then the data would be unsafe regardless of whether it was google or not.
Way, way too much hyperbole in these comments.
Jeez, you people. At risk of sounding out-of-step with the groupthink here I'm not sure I see the problem.
First, what difference does it make if the researchers are British or not? Second, provided the safeguards on the data are adhered to, then all the big-brother-doom-and-gloom scenarios in the comments just don't happen. The fact Aunty Mabel has a fondness for heroin is not going to wind up in a search engine, because there are specific contractual safeguards on the data to prevent this. If the safeguards are adhered to, it's fine.
If they're not, then there's a data leak then heads will be on spikes, and I will personally help put them there. But that would apply to any firm with any private data for any one of the hundred NHS projects that are running, not just this one. And there's no particular reason to believe it will happen.
There is a lot of data. Properly processed it may help diagnosis, which will keep people alive. This is a good thing. The NHS doesn't have the expertise for this in house so hires in outside consultants with expertise in managing large datasets. This is OK, provided the data is properly safeguarded. You might well object to your data being used like this, fine, but I don't see why this project gets your hackles up any more than any other.
If this article were rewritten with Fujitsu or HP instead of Google, would there be as much outrage? I doubt it. If anything Google are less likely to run five times over budget and not finish the job, which is what you'd expect from a normal NHS IT project.
Shurely he should point out that the ultra-orthodox pastafarians believe the holy colander(*) is only to be worn at home?
* works on many levels.
(edit @kryptonaut: snap)
Quite right too. Everyone knows Saturday is the only acceptable day for a religious holiday. Or maybe it's Sunday? I'm not sure if I'm honest, but whatever it is I am certain that Friday is completely unacceptable.
Tell you what Alexander, as you are clearly very busy and important., I'll save you the effort and quote this for you:
"(22) The prohibition of storage of communications and the related traffic data by persons other than the users or without their consent is not intended to prohibit any automatic, intermediate and transient storage of this information in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the electronic communications network and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is necessary for the transmission and for traffic management purposes, and that during the period of storage the confidentiality remains guaranteed. Where this is necessary for making more efficient the onward transmission of any publicly accessible information to other recipients of the service upon their request, this Directive should not prevent such information from being further stored, provided that this information would in any case be accessible to the public without restriction and that any data referring to the individual subscribers or users requesting such information are erased."
I presume this is the definition of storage you refer to?
Perhaps you could share some of your wisdom with us on paragraph 25?
(25) However, such devices, for instance so-called "cookies", can be a legitimate and useful tool, for example, in analysing the effectiveness of website design and advertising, and in verifying the identity of users engaged in on-line transactions. Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important where users other than the original user have access to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be offered once for the use of various devices to be installed on the user's terminal equipment during the same connection and also covering any further use that may be made of those devices during subsequent connections. The methods for giving information, offering a right to refuse or requesting consent should be made as user-friendly as possible. Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.
Maybe I just can't be arsed again, but it looks like that could apply to JS used to "analyse the effectiveness [,..] of advertising", and that allowance is specifically made for "website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device".
Asking the user to remove an ad block is asking for consent to show ads, wouldn't you agree?
If I understand your argument, you say the storage of the script which asks the user to remove add blocking itself requires consent? But surely asking for any form of consent requires a script, which requires storage, which requires consent? I refer you to my reductio ad absurdum argument above.
If you could spare a minute to enlighten us hoi polloi further that would certainly further the conversation, don't you think?
Given this topic is now four days old, and that the same point has been made several times already, perhaps you would consider sharing with us great unwashed the benefit of your many years of experience on this topic, and provide us with links to some of these answers you cite?
After all this is your area of expertise, and they are fairly central to your argument. You probably have them to hand, as no doubt you will need to cite them as part of your impending challenges.
Until then you are very welcome, and I anticipate once again basking in the warm glow of your haughty response.
I'm not sure that's fair actually. Regardless of personal distaste for online advertising, I think his point is sound.
The letter states that "storing of information of gaining of access to information already stored is [..]. allowed if the user has given his or her consent".
FF22 is making the point that if you consider the caching of the ad-detection script to be "storage", and therefore requiring consent, then logically this requirement would then apply to everything in the cache.
Visit a page that loads an image? The image is stored in the cache, so you have to give consent. And so on for every resource on the page, including the HTML itself. I'm no great fan of advertising online, and run an ad-blocker for most sites, but I have to agree with this assessment.
Whether it's true or not will hinge on two things.
First, the definition of storage as it is used in the directive. This is not simply a matter of quoting a dictionary definition: there must be exemptions for temporary storage required to facilitate the transaction, otherwise your SMTP server would not be able to accept your mail for further transmission, for example. I think the browser cache would fall into the same category.
Second, the definition of consent. Perhaps you could argue that by typing a URL in your browser you have given informed consent to the display of that page and the resources you would reasonably assume to be a part of that page - stylesheets, images and so on. From there it's not a great stretch to argue that a script which checks whether the adverts are displayed properly is reasonably part of a website that depends on ad revenue.
In short, if you assume Hanff is correct that explicit consent is required and applies to all storage, then it's reductio ad absurdum to the point where your browser is unable to function. I have no doubt he will take this to court and I'll be intersted in the result, but I think it's not as cut and dried as he makes out.
> It looks to me many complains about systemd is from people who wish to manage
> systems as if it was still 1970 and nothing changed in the past forty years.
The complaints are from people who didn't think the old system was that broken, and question the need to throw it out for a new and relatively untested system, designed by a guy who has a track record of designing for quite a narrow segment of the Linux market, of not listening to criticism, and failing to fix bugs. Having tried, and failed to get pulseaudio working properly on numerous headless boxes I have run into enough incorrect or incomplete documentation that I distrust his approach and dislike his hubris. Especially for an init system.
> Instead opting for a promise to salt the pasta water. That seems... sad
I disagree. Salting the water is very important, and people do forget over time.
At risk of dragging this one out, you've missed an important half of the point I'm trying to make.
If sitting still on the bike at the lights and trundling forward in traffic it goes green was a zero-risk option, I would agree with you. But it is demonstrably not. Cyclists are at risk at lights, this is a statisticlly undeniable and self-evident truth for anyone that has ever ridden a bike once in heavy traffic. They're at risk because
* they're slower to accelerate than the vehicles around them
* they have less rubber in contact with the ground, making them more sensitive to surface conditions (manhole covers, drainage grills etc)
* because they wobble at low speeds due to, you know, the laws of physics
* because god didn't see fit to bless us with crumple zones
* because traffic lights are a great place for drivers to catch up on their texting or breakfast
* and because plenty of otherwise decent folk seem to think that cyclists are vermin and all should answer for the sins of the few. "lycra-clad lunatic", very good pompous git, thank you for underlining my point.
It's all about reducing risk. On a bike, rolling slowly through a red to turn left (to repeat, after a careful look, a feat which I have to tell you is not actually impossible), my carefully considered judgement is that it raises the risk to no-one and reduces the risk to me. If that makes me self-obsessed, I can live with that.
And incidentally, there are some (not many) pavements in London which are dual use for cyclists and pedestrians. Here's one on Chelsea Embankment (zoom in on the blue sign). Again, this is not a license for cyclists to behave like dickheads, and nor is it a license for pedestrians to "swing a big stick" or push it in their spokes (that last one @x 7).
As always it comes down to the golden rule: don't be a dick. Play nicely with others, and don't assume they will play nicely with you.
> you dickhead
Care to expand on exactly why you think this? Did you note that I ensure no-one else is put at risk before doing so? So what exactly is the nature of my dickheadary: that I am prioritising my safety over the law? Does flouting the law make me a dickhead regardless of circumstance? Would your opinion still apply if I was cycling in paris?
> It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome
> reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements,
> which is quite simply against the law in the first place. Oh and ignoring red lights...
Meh. I drive a car, ride a motorbike and ride a pushbike. Every day I see others doing one of these things who are acting like dicks, for some reason or another. But I don't wax on about "car drivers" as a group doing this or motorcyclists as a group doing that. Maybe the clue is in the numbers - 2% of journeys by cycle, it's just a small enough segment that cyclists can be classified as "them" by the rest of the population.
In 20 years of riding in London I would say I see cyclists on pavements rarely. It's rare because it's inherently slower - if you are commuting from A to B then the pavement is the slowest place to be. Sure, it happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, and as I said there are dicks on all forms of transport.
As for jumping red lights - absoutely, if the situation calls for it and it can be done without endangering anyone. My primary goal whenever I get on two wheels is to get to where I'm going alive. If that means clearing the lights before everyone starts to accelerate around me, or when they pull 5m ahead then hard turn left, then damn right I'll do it. Note this is a "look, ensure it's clear then go", not a "plow wildly through a pedestrian crossing" type of light running. Yes, again, that happens, and I refer you to my above comment about dicks.
> there's quite a bit of neat kit on the market that allows anyone with some technical abilities to hijack your Wi-Fi connections.
Reference please, to something that will hijack WPA2-AES not WEP.
LXC is the bees knees - we switched from KVM a while back, they're noticably lighter on the server. Can't speak for LXD, I gather it's largely polish for LXC but the underlying tech is great. As is ZFS, of course. Couldn't give a rats about the desktop and I agree it's a shame the server-side aspects where dismissed with a handwave in this article.
Thanks for the tip, very timely. Looks interesting, with caveats: http://projects.bre.co.uk/positivevent/
It's a syntax error, not a peanut allergy. And what's wrong with a gentle introduction, exactly? You don't teach kids to swim by throwing them in the deep end.
This is potentially very significant.
EC is pretty much the standard for new cryptosystems designed with mobile in mind, due to shorter key lengths and less computation when compared to RSA. For instance, the Austrian (and I think German) ID card schemes are build on EC - this stuff is now baked in at a very deep level. I realise these attacks are against software-based implementations, but the fact they they're done with relatively cheap hardware (impressive), against EC on relatively recent mobile devices is, I think, quite a big deal.
It's been years and we're all still running crappy, outdated crypto in our browsers - well imagine how long it's going to take to upgrade mobile infrastructure. There are hardware implementations of ECDH and ECDSA too, a successful TEMPEST attack against those would be huge.
ISO8601 or GTFO
> As a law-abiding, non-paranoid individual, I have nothing to fear.
Hmm, what's that phrase.... ah yes. Wake Up Sheeple!
Bless. Docker and LXC are a way of compartmentalising software run on Linux. Java is a programming language. But well done for trying.