"Well we said we'd ask. We didn't say you'd have to agree!"
In case/Before anyone dismisses this as a snide jab, isn't it more or less exactly what YouTube said to Zoë Keating?
435 posts • joined 19 Dec 2012
Anyone who prefers free ad-supported versions of X to paid ad-free ones && does not have Adblock installed? That would be plenty, I imagine.
I am highly unlikely to pick up "Confessions of a Tinderella" even at an airport bookshop ("Seveneves" is another matter), but this does not stop me from taking issue with your "Bridget Jones with an iPhone" characterisation. That place is firmly occupied by "Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy". Trespassers W...
God save us from such people. Won't someone think of
the children contraceptives?
My first urge was cattle.prod, actually...
Your fridge maintains a steady temperature, you heating keeps a set room temperature, your video recorder records at set times. You may have a garage door that opens when you push a button on a remote in your car.
All this works pretty well without Internet though. When I arrive home I never catch myself thinking, "Oh, what a bother! Why do I need to press a button, flip a switch, or insert a key in the door lock? Wouldn't it be nice to pull out a smartphone, unlock the screen, find the right app, and navigate multiple controls on a small screen instead?" Once there is a cheap phone that can load the laundry into the washing machine and then take it out and fold it neatly, and not just switch the machine on and off, let's talk again.
I have not seen a compelling use case to interfere with anything at home over the Internet, certainly not considering the associated expense, the deterioration of security, and the need to co-ordinate with other family members who may also feel the urge to fiddle with something from many miles away.
And I don't really see how IoT can do anything but be an add-on gimmick to "normal" controls. No manufacturer (except maybe a complete world monopoly) can afford to make a product inoperable on its own. "Are you in the kitchen, dear? Dinner is in the oven already, could you please just switch it on?" - "Sorry, darling, I left my iPhone in the bedroom."
@LeeD "So... we've been here before and they recovered just fine?
AFAIK, the whole phenomenon is just a few years old, so no, they have not recovered. It was big news a few years ago (probably masked by the global financial crisis), not sure why El Reg is picking this up just now.
The article says "average" (actually referring to the last few years), not "normal".
...Reg readers will doubtless wish that the main candidates for prime minister [...] could code a single line of anything...
I am pretty sure they all can do one line of python:
Somehow I doubt people search for news on Google. They search for something in general, and Google serves news sites, such as The Register or The Guardian, among other things. Any complaint is presumably about The Guardian not being offered enough. This is not "news traffic", this is "The Guardian also published something relevant at some point" traffic.
Besides, how many of search referrals are due to "I read about this on El Reg/The Graun recently, so let's search for 'left-handed underpants +guardian'" is unclear to me. Probably a lot, but I cannot back it up. This is seaching specifically for Guardian traffic.
When a user is interested in the news he/she may go to The Register or The Guardian directly, or may fire up Google News. This (all of the above + The Telegraph) is what I do to check the news. It seems that this activity leads to 12% of The Register's traffic coming from Google News, which is quite in line with the quoted 10% ballpark.
If we assume Clinton bought her server in 2009, we either have a presidential candidate with a liking for soon-to-be-obsolete tech or one with a willingness to run crusty old kit in mission-critical environments.
Or one with enough insider knowledge to choose the only remaining tech without backdoors?
Logically the bottom half of the FTSE, Dow Jones, S&P, Nasdaq etc should all close their businesses and put the money into a tracker fund.
I don't know how deep in your cheek your tongue was when you hit Submit, but actually, seriously: this is not silly or absurd at all.
If (when - whatever) the "bottom halvers" do what you suggest it will create an opportunity for others, because these guys presumably do something useful and if they close shops there will be a supply deficit of whatever they produce. Whoever fills the vacuum will enjoy better returns than the current crop - for a while. Eventually supply will balance the demand, on average, etc. On the other hand the "tracker fund" won't make any return unless the (presumably large amount of) money is actually invested either in the "top halvers" or in similar - highly correlated, "tracking" - companies (the "top halvers" will not be eager to sell their hot property stock under those conditions, but there will be eager newcomers who will see investors' demand). That will create oversupply of the stuff that those "top halvers" make, and their margins will go down... So the investment will be risky - a different risk than one associated with producing stuff (or not producing stuff, as the case may be).
In reality, the system is usually efficient enough to react this way to much smaller fluctuations that do occur. And when you make a move you win some, you lose some. And occasionally bubbles get blown out of all proportion and then go POP.
Many, many years ago I was working in an environment (it would be called "cloud" today, but the term had not been invented then) with a large variety of target platforms (CPU/OS/libraries/etc.). A standing meta-requirement was that one's code (it was a period when new college graduates - not me - no longer graduated with Fortran skills, so C was used more and more instead) had to run on any system, including those that the company didn't have yet, and those that had not yet been invented.
Turned out quite possible, with standards (POSIX, SUS, IEEE754, etc.) and paying attention to every compiler warning imaginable, etc. I grew into a habit to writing software that way, and the results proved reproducible through the years and in different settings. Not only did the software work correctly on just about anything that got hot, when new CPUs came out and compilers caught up, the same code would run more efficiently after recompilation, possibly with a new set of options. Definitely one of the most important lessons of my career.
[Disclaimer: Microsoft Windows was always out of scope.]
I don't mean to criticise (really!), but I suspect that the presence of a compiler (and thus static analysis and machine code independent of the programming environment and language) is significant in the context. When an evolving language (and that's a good trait) includes its own runtime environment things get more complicated, possibly because maintaining compatibility is difficult when you deal with more complex, high level concepts. I reacted to someone's touting Java's "stability" separately. Python2->Python3 does not seem a bliss so far, either, does it? And I am not sure the conceptual difference is as big as between different Fortran versions (or C++98/11/14 for that matter).
with a stable set of classes that will "never" be phased out...
...and semantics changing between one version and another, by specification, introducing incompatibly different behaviour of multithreaded applications (just an example, mind you) when using different versions of JVM, thus preventing upgrades?
I shudder indeed recalling the horrors of having several different versions of JVM because applications written by the same group in a big multinational corporation (that sold JVMs among lots of other things) each required a different version of Java and could not run on the others. And whole research teams inside the said multinational working on software that would detect the incompatibilities and tweak the code (and/or bytecode) to automate the transitions. [Come to think of it, maybe they should submit proposals to DARPA...]
You should never use business email. Period.
- Secretary Clinton.
I had to look up the Elane Photography vs. Willock case to justify my El Reg handle. Seems that NM has a law on its books prohibiting refusing service on the grounds of the customer's sexual orientation. The (lesbian) couple in question were, apparently, politely refused, had no problem finding another photographer at a cheaper price, and happily tied the knot. And then they still sued...
I wonder what would happen if the photographers just said they were fully booked and could not provide the service. I suspect they would be sued anyway. Frankly, I think I mind Indiana laws much less than a law that allows that.
I am not sure where the line is drawn. On the one hand, allowing businesses to refuse regular service to people of colour or Jews or Muslims or LGBT is out of the question in this day and age. On the other hand, somehow I don't see a Jew suing a Christian butcher for not providing kosher meat - that would not be grounds for a religious discrimination accusations, would it? And I have a bit of a trouble trying to distinguish between a steak going through a particular process and a wedding cake baked in a particular shape or form. A kosher steak would be a bigger "burden" practically, but where is the line? The "burden" in the law is not about practicalities, anyway, and there is nothing in the Christian religion that specifically prohibits kosher food, is there? And I can see how a devout Christian might consider providing a traditional cake for a non-traditional wedding as actively participating in a rite that is inconsistent with his beliefs. Point is, should this - and kosher food, too - be considered a specialized service and should the rules be a bit different?
The "we don't like your attitude so we won't do business with you" position of Apple et al. seems a reasonable approach (compared to "let's sue the hell out of all these Christian fundamentalists!" that is so often the alternative nowadays). On the other hand, at least from a distance Indiana does not seem to say "LGBT folks are not welcome here." They say, "do come, but please respect everybody." It's not like an Apple employee on a business trip to Indiana has to fill out a questionnaire on what one does in the bedroom before sitting down for a restaurant meal.
A gedankenexperiment: Let's say Indiana affirmed the right of individual shops and restaurants to not serve kosher food (possibly as a result of a lawsuit), and Jewish-owned businesses, starting with Facebook for visibility, said they would boycott the state. What would the pubic opinion be? [Come to think of it, the public might well misinterpret the measure as a ban on kosher products and all hell might break loose.]
@Vimes: "And Polish film goers will lose interest in Polish films if they're available elsewhere in Europe? Really?How does that one work?
I suspect the perceived threat is that Polish film goers will lose interest in Polish films if Poland is swamped in cheap, unencumbered by copyrights or license fees, films from the rest of Europe. It's the usual "must protect the local producers" argument.
Sounds like Amazon purchases... Oh, books on nuclear physics? I see...
What does that mean, exactly? That the profit grew by 1.1% again, like last year? This would not warrant the "however" part, would it?
Did you intend to write "profit remained flat year on year"? That would be "profit growth was zero" (or, rather, 1.1% = $180M/$178M).
Coat, please, and that hat that looks like it belongs to a pedant. Yes, the red one, thank you.
I don't even mind it, as long as the spying is for a country's security and/or political (von Clausewitz, etc.) needs and not mass surveillance of the country's own citizens or of foreigners. There are at least 7 parties to the Iran nuclear talks, and all of them are legitimate targets for spy agencies everywhere, including Israelis, Saudis, Turks, you name it.
In this case something on the surface smells inconsistent. If I recall correctly, Obama promised, on numerous occasions, that Israel would be continuously and thoroughly updated on the ongoing Iran nuclear talks (I can't be a***d to Google the precise quotes, but it was quite unequivocal). By alleging that the Israelis obtained information about the talks that they should not have had, aren't the Americans admitting that the President has broken his very public promise?
Yes, yes, realpolitik, yada-yada. We are all adults here. Not so sure about the White House though - they seem to behave like little kids sometimes. Diplomatically, it seems a serious blunder on their part. Someone else called it a tantrum, and, frankly, it does look like it. But maybe they are not concerned - someone may notice, so what? Just like spying...
"...eventually they'll think faster than us..."
They are faster already, but they don't really think. Of course, if masses of... ahem... average voters[*] stop thinking altogether and start relying on the machines to do stuff the latter were never designed to do, on the basis of the machines being (perceived to be) good enough and very fast indeed at simple tasks... Wait, that will redefine the very notion of thinking and make Woz right... OMG, we may be DOOMED!
[*] With a nod to one of Britain's great leaders...
@martinusher: In our part of the US people come off the road and are lost for literally days before being found.
The issue is not whether or not there are scenarios where automatic emergency calls are useful. The problem is that existence of such scenarios does not warrant forcing every car owner in the EU to pay for what should be an optional add-on.
I, for one, am highly unlikely to drive around your part of the US or on remote UK roads, in lousy weather, at night, on a regular basis, in my car. If offered such a feature as an option I will probably decline. The extra cost plus the possibility of abuse far outweighs its potential usefulness to me. But the proposed legislation will force me to have this feature - and pay for it - even though I really don't want it and am suspicious or its real purposes. Forgive me if the adult in me finds this kind of nanny-state regulation intrusive and offensive.
> Or if viable, isolate the antenna...
And then die because you crashed at night, in heavy rain, in the middle of nowhere, and none noticed until three days latter.
With all due respect to your emergency services experience, the decision of whether or not to take that risk should be made by the car owner, not by an EU bureaucrat.
The American GPS satellites do not know where you are. You seem to not know the difference between GPS receivers and GPS trackers.
...to actually enjoy driving enough to dislike mandatory AI-driven cars for that reason only?
Forget about city centre traffic - it's relatively easy. I'd like to see an AI trying to find a parking spot in a city centre - in traffic. How will it navigate without a specified destination?
... men who are easily excited by "vanilla" pron watch more of it.
looks quite natural, actually, and does not give the impression that your office is in Moldova...
@YAAC; "It also encourages ordinary people to think..."
...about the possible consequences of saying this or that, to censor themselves, and to generally conform and toe the "party line". The holy grail of a totalitarian state.
"It's a good thing," you say?
@Bill Cumming: "All the law required at that time was that all work related emails were logged onto the official system..."
So all that was required of her was to never forget to Bcc: email@example.com on non-personal emails sent? Did I get it right? And a set of procmail rules (or other filters) to forward every non-personal mail received, of course. Separate accounts seem much easier to set up, frankly.
Her defence seems to be that it was convenient to use a single device rather than separate devices for official and personal emails. Why separate accounts could not be used on a single device? Any particular security considerations would also apply to running official business through one's personal account, I imagine. Frankly, it sounds like a "get off my back already" bullshit response from an arrogant powerful politician.
Someone needs to explain to the Commish that of all things YouTube and games should not be "slowed down" as they are sensitive to latency and jitter. Uploading and downloading EU (or any government's) forms and documents, however, will not suffer noticeably if throttling is applied.
As for emergency calls over a mesh of loosely connected "best effort" networks...
IIRC the first release of MacBook Air, a.k.a. "the finest personal computer ever made", was famous for fitting into an envelope and for not having effective cooling for that very reason. When it got too hot the CPU throttled itself down, which resulted in the machine craaaaawling if forced to do anything more strenuous than email. By now people have learned to cool thin things (and make cooler CPUs) and to convince others that email is all you need (just review some comments here).
I agree with rpc27 - the Air genealogy is pretty obvious. I suspect the thinking is: the "target audience" will buy it anyway, we'll add stuff to MkII depending on what they complain about the loudest, we'll call the improvements "magical and revolutionary", and they'll upgrade.
@Hellcat: don't forget that watching legally bought DVDs or pictures taken with DSLRs are activities from which Apple do not get a cut to increase shareholder value.
@Joe 48: "with man in the middle you'd need the encryption keys"
Not really. The keys are generated per session, and exchanged between the parties based on the trust in signed certificates. Suppose you try to connect to Google through your ISP. I am GCHQ and I convince or force or trick the ISP (and maybe a CA or two) to do my bidding. As a result you get a fake certificate over the SSL connection that says I am Google and is verified to a fare-thee-well. You trust the certificate and exchange keys for the session with me, thinking I am Google. I exchange keys with Google who think I am you. The session is encrypted between you and me and between me and Google, but not end to end.
This does not necessarily mean I can install a trojan on your Linux virtual machine.
@durandal: "<...> the police will issue a letter on behalf of the victim that basically says that any further contact is unwanted, and removing any doubt on that matter."
Can they do this to telemarketers?
@Stuart Longland: "kindly define what YOU mean by ON"
Eh, "kindly define what YOU ARE ON"?
To me it actually sounds more like "people can get fired for selling IBM"...
The way I read it this does not mean that after an "attitude readjustment" from NSA or advertisers or both Lollipop devices will not have full disk encryption enabled out of the box. Most probably will, while some, presumably cheaper ones, may leave the setting off.
So between 4.4 and 5.0 Google realized that since their model, as far as I understand it, allows basically anyone to make an Android device, then with all their power they cannot really force all device manufacturers to include HW encryption accelerator. This makes the use of SHOULD quite proper under RC2119 (they refer to it). To quote the latter:
SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Paranoid as I am, this does not sound like "the BASTARDS are selling me out to NSA/advertisers AGAIN!" They are, of course, but disk encryption is probably irrelevant for that purpose. All it protects you from is someone who gets hold of your device and tries to read the disk bypassing the screen lock. Or something.
Apple can afford to use RFC2119 MUST in their internal requirements documents.
Why would they build anything but a GPS receiver into a supposedly secure phone then? A receiver should be enough for navigation, and I can only associate transmitting location data with a threat to privacy - what am I missing?
Regardless of the merits of the complaints I am saddened, but not surprised (to paraphrase a QOTW about trolls), that a patent dispute between Ericsson and Apple has something to do with East Texas. Does either company even have a presence there? I can't help thinking that lawyers for manufacturing and non-manufacturing entities alike habitually collude to convince their employers/clients to slug it out in Texas, and even the manufacturers don't mind much since we, the consumers, pay the costs, anyway.
My car - and the key fob remote - is ~7.5 years old and I have not changed the battery yet. My watch also has a battery. I think I changed it once a few years ago. Not bloody likely that I'll be in a hurry to settle for a 1 day battery life in a combo.
I'd say the post scriptum answer to the headline's question is quite incomplete. NSA want backdoors that will allow them to break into our computer and see if there is anything of interest there that has never been sent over the network. Decrypting your comms is just one part of the job.
You don't say if there is any particular point in the CIPS ethics code that you cannot agree with. If there isn't, go forth and sign it. If all that bothers you is that your ethics (as manifested by competency) will be assessed by someone else who sees things differently, and that this will somehow make you "unethical", in my mind it is not an issue.
Allow me to elaborate. First, background disclosure, to help you decide whether to ignore the rest. I have some advanced degrees and I've taught at universities in addition to my day industry jobs. I am very comfortable with calculus among other fields. I code quite a bit when required (and it usually is), and I rather loathe Java. I tend to do lots of IT and DevOps stuff in addition to my real job simply because there is no one else around (e.g., in the startup I am with now) who can do it as well as I do, but I am not a provider of IT services as you are. I may agree or disagree with what you write on occasion, but do carry on - I will be awaiting your future columns (Drew - good call...).
I generally avoid being a member of organizations or societies, but I have been in the past, and I carefully checked the by-laws and ethical codes every time. Some companies I worked for (the really big ones) have ethical codes, professional conduct codes, etc. I had to sign those, too. I always made a point studying them. I must say I was quite impressed by both the apparent intent and the specific formulations and I never thought, "I shouldn't really sign this, but I will, to stay employed."
1. To answer your main question: Being a member of a professional organization will not really make you any different, nor will it make you a better or worse techie than you are. It does not define you. It may be a (perfectly ethical) tool in making your sales pitch more attractive to prospective clients, but it will not mean that you'll do your job any differently. It will be up to you to add to the professional society's credit - consider it an incentive.
2. Subscribing to an ethical code does not mean you cannot make any professional mistake from that moment on. I've never seen an ethics code that says, "making mistakes is unethical." If you "forget" to point out to a customer that designing a wirelessly controlled pacemaker or insulin pump with insufficient security (or pre-installing a certificate hijacker on a laptop, for that matter) will expose the end user to real danger just because you are afraid the contract will go to someone else, then it's a question of ethics. Generally speaking, it is about recognizing a conflict of interest. Is there anything that you would have done differently if circumstances were different? If at any point you recognize that something should not be done and do it anyway - that is when your ethics should be questioned. Offering your services while recognizing you cannot do the job is included - the term "competency" seems related.
3. By all means get a degree if you feel it'll be beneficial, either as a sales pitch aid or as a step to personal fulfilment or - hopefully - both. A degree will not, by itself, change you. Nor will it make you a better techie in any narrow, specific sense. A (good) university is not a vocational school, its job is not to add a specific set of skills to your repertoire. It may make you a better, more methodical learner and it may help you approach completely new problems with no known solutions more effectively (especially if we are talking about a master's degree). Again, it will be up to you to add to the university's reputation.
4. Most importantly to remember in moments of self-doubt: you are not, repeat NOT responsible for any expectations others may have of you. You cannot be. This includes your technology skills, your writing skills, everything. This includes the simpletons who think that if you have a university diploma or some membership card you will provide a better service. This includes any expectations that someone may have that you will never, ever, screw up. Your personal or professional ethics does not mean infallibility.
Best of luck.
@king_tut: I think the issue here is that if you've got the keys for damn near all the SIMs in the world then you can, in principle at least, eavesdrop on cellular conversations everywhere, not just in your own country where you may have either a quiet understanding with carriers or a secret blanket warrant. You don't need permission from a foreign cell company or authorities that may not be completely accommodating, nor do you need to sneak inside the carrier's network to get to unencrypted comms. Capturing the signal from the wireless leg will be enough - you can decrypt it at your leisure and without much effort. You say as much, of course, but I would not limit the utility of the method to really unfriendly locations as you do. Therein lies a problem...
@WonkoTheSane: I, for one, do not wish to be transparent
(because that would be... ew!)
I, for one, do not want to be transparent because basic physics says I will necessarily have to be blind then. In more sense than one, it seems...
Maybe those banks are relying too much on Windows?
To an extent, insofar as the initial attack vector was, allegedly, phishing emails read by clerks who were, probably, using Windows. The actual malware (at least initial stages) could be assembly-based, so your question could be phrased as "Maybe those banks are relying too much on $(uname -m)?"
I'm amazed that daily reconciliation didn't catch up with this.
Reconciliation wouldn't. The operations were disguised as transactions, so your money would be wired to another bank and the two banks would reconcile without a hitch. Note the following tidbit from the article: "criminals [...] sought out employees charged with administering cash transfer and ATMs" - apparently it all started and/or ended with cash. Started with fake cash transactions, ended with real ones?
Having said that, and not knowing any details, I assume there were both serious security shortcomings (beyond careless employees who click on juicy links and attachments on the same computer that handles their customers' money) and procedural/accounting gaps involved.
...any intelligent life resident on Gliese 581c is liable to have superhuman strength as the planet's surface gravity seems likely to be several times as strong as that of Earth
Actually, the Gliese 581c residents are likely to be small and light, since supporting a human-size (or larger) body on a planet with strong gravity would be exceedingly difficult.
So being swallowed by a small dog will be a quite likely outcome of their invasion.
I am curious: did the same company handle Barbra Streisand's internet affairs at one time?
It is not clear to me from the article whether personal data synced to Apple or Google[*] or whatever will be similarly protected under the proposed law. If not, either the law won't mean much or criminals will stop syncing - and, as if on cue, anyone who does not sync will be immediately suspect and obtaining a warrant won't be a problem ("He obviously has something to hide, Your Honor...").
[*] Both Californian companies.