59 posts • joined Friday 4th January 2013 13:29 GMT
Re: Glasshole killer app involves dog turds
I am intrigued... Can one of the downvoters please explain what is incorrect (and why) with this statement: "Glass does however present a very realistic set of new opportunities for the budding criminal, which are not so satisfactory on a traditional handset."
Thank you :)
Re: Glasshole killer app involves dog turds
"Every single item on your list apart from the obvious turn by turn directions, can be done satisfactorily with a handset app."
^ What he said.
Glass does however present a very realistic set of new opportunities for the budding criminal, which are not so satisfactory on a traditional handset.
Re: Security Theater Only
"PFS is a good thing as far as it goes. However, it is tangential to the issue here. The issue is that nefarious entities (NSA, FBI and others) can gain access to private information by forcing Microsoft to hand over the ciphertext and keys..."
Yes. I agree although my original comments were intended to address the technical improvement only.
Personally I see 4 distinct but interleaved areas here: (1) Intrinsic data security; (2) Trust; (3) Legislation; (4) The security services.
In terms of intrinsic data security, PFS can only be a good thing. From a data perspective alone it has to be seen as a welcome improvement and I would welcome any argument, presented on a purely technical basis, to the contrary (not necessarily from your good self, but from anyone).
In terms of trust things appear to be a little more complex and subjective. Essentially, improving basic data security may well foster a little trust in some circles. In others perhaps not so. Would I personally trust Microsoft? No more that I would Apple, Google, Cisco, Yahoo, Adobe, Facebook, Twitter et.al. They're all cast from the same die.
As for legislation and the security services... Well, if they conspire (in)appropriately, any real sense of data security is abject folly. In this respect I feel it's a little unfair for Microsoft to be singled out as every person and business is subject to the laws of the land. But I do see this a wholly different discussion, as opposed to a tangential one - but then I'm like that ;)
Re: Security Theater Only
"It's easy to keep a secret if the only person you need to share it with is you. So Microsoft can make a perfectly secure system where you have the keys, you encrypt it, they store and you decrypt it. That's great if the only use of the cloud is as a great big disk drive in the sky. As soon as you need somebody else to process it then you need to share keys and unless you trust them you are screwed "
I might be misunderstanding your point, but surely you are not implying that if I am using SSL/TLS+PFS and you have my private key that you can decrypt my data, are you?
Re: Security Theater Only
"Unless the MITM has a copy of the key."
But how does he get that? He can have both public and private keys, but how does he get the session key when it is never sent across the network*?
*Which is why I originally said without complicit skulduggery :) I was hoping to address the technical as opposed to the political/judicial.
"As you have all pointed put, the NSA an most agencies have the SSL master keys. Therefore, all HTTPs sessions with "secure" keys provided by the major key providers are insecure."
That's fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree.
But, let's say you are a hypothetical MITM, and you have both public and private keys. How are you going to decrypt my PFS traffic?
Re: Security Theater Only
"This is just smoke and mirrors... suffice it to say that Microsoft's protests that they are getting secure is 100% hot air. There is no effective increase in security here. What we were worried about remains exactly as it was."
[I only quote the above because it summarises general sentiment as of the time of writing this].
Why does PFS provide no effective increase in security? Surely, assuming no complicit skulduggery, at the very least it negates MITM attacks?
I assume also that general sentiment holds true for Twitter and any other company implementing PFS?
Re: That's it...
"I'm going to patent the 'warp core'... /getrichquickscheme"
A 'shake to unlock wrist worn electronic device' patent may see a quicker return.
Re: Filed March 6, 2008
"Clearly others filed for patents on facial recognition earlier, probably not for unlocking a mobile device but perhaps for say unlocking a laptop using the built in webcam."
US8149089 - granted. (Also published as US20090160609). An image clearly shows some sort of mobile device.
Re: Wrong Downside
"not defining 'extremist' has more to do with not offending Muslims than any hidden intent to scrub the Internet of legitimate political dissent."
Perhaps, but I am not wholly convinced that holds true.
I am sure there is much potential leverage to be had by deliberately avoiding defining words such as "extremist" or "hate". It's far more convenient for Kim Jong-Cameron and his pseudo-puritanical weasel logic to leave such terms wholly undefined.
"So am I OK with this? Well, there's one problem. Now, if you don't have children who need protecting against online smut, and thus don't want your Internet filtered... now you can be suspected of being a terrorist!"
Why stop there? If we don't personally sanction his logic then by inference we're already sexually deviant, extremist alcoholics with gambling problems and suicidal tendencies as far as Cameron and fellow weasels are concerned (when viewed in the context of likely scope for such internet filters).
The man thoroughly enjoys demonising his electorate whilst bastardising democratic principles and hijacking the misfortune of others*.
This whole saga is a poisoned chalice and still has a long way to run.
*As you can probably tell, I am not his greatest fan ;)
@skelband Re: Here's an idea
"Well here's another thought: Perhaps it could be blocked *after* the accusation has been proved in court. You know, like we do in a democracy."
Why do you assume that a presumption of innocence is a democratic right?
It may be a human right laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, it is not a function of political democracy within the UK, which has judicial independence.
Re: Here's an idea
I completely agree.
The UK/EU appear to be moving on, in great leaps leaps and bounds, towards a system whereby accusation becomes synonymous with guilt - political and corporate mob rule, by any other name.
My thoughts are that (1) Should an ISP be required to block a site on the grounds of accusation alone, then such a block should only stand for a limited period, during which the petitioner should be required to prove, in a court, the offence. (2) Should a petitioner fail to act in accordance with (1) within a given time frame (say 3-6 months) - or fail to prove the offence - then the original petition should be deemed invalid and any links/content should be reinstated.
Of course, that will never happen.
Re: And I suppose...
"did the UK government know?... If they didn't know, then why not?"
If they did know, then of course, they didn't know because they didn't want to admit knowing. Either that, or they would never admit to not knowing because it could imply that they were claiming not to know when they knew and they knew that admitting that they knew was worse than pretending they didn't know what they patently knew (I think).
Vive la révolution!
Yup, next year you'll be able to get all glassed up, walk down the high street, have ads pop out of shop doors and windows and have a personalised advertisement soundspace beamed directly into your head, courtesy of a little directional sound.
Actually, I am developing a little app... Subliminal visual stimuli combined with a little directional audio and the talents of my favourite hypnotist. I reckon I should be able to implement my exit strategy a few years earlier than planned now that I can persuade you all to buy whatever I want.
Re: Oh Christ, not another one...
"e-cigs are a time bomb... Like asbestos and thalidomide, this is another tragedy-in-waiting."
It is also true that harmful nanoparticles, especially combustion-derived nanoparticles, are globally ubiquitous and are produced by many of our daily activities.
Within the scope of normal daily life, nickel nano-particles from e-cigs present a trivially minuscule risk to health in comparison to the (combustion-derived) nanoparticles that you inhale with each and every single breath you take.
Sure, there's a risk. But please, keep it in perspective.
Re: IPCC blaming heretics again?
"It looks like climate change disaster scenarios are moving from the horror section to the comedy section of the store."
The UN are playing a game of political poker. Their first hand was CO2, the next will be Nitrus Oxide.
Unfortunately, the simple truth is that the UN will keep banging on, and on, an on ad infinutum, until all first world nations kotow to their global taxation demands.
Irrespective of the scientific debate, global taxation is the UNs ultimate goal and is why the IPCC should be replaced with a transparent and properly staffed scientific body that is independent from any form of political influence or scientific peer pressure.
Re: Dear Reg Lawyers ..
Also, what if someone were to pose a question such as, "Did David Cameron, when employed as Director of Corporate Affairs for Carlton Communications, collude with John Majors government to ensure that certain evidential material of alleged illegal activity (in the form of a Cook Report) 'disappeared'?"
Does defamation need to take the form of a statement, as current law seems to suggest? Or can one be found guilty of defamation by way of implication (as in the above illustration)?
From the article: "Many have been troubled by the PM regularly conflating the two very separate issues of illegal and legal content online."
Indeed. It is in this manner that he has won much uneducated and unthinking public support for his 'porn filter'.
Over the past few days I have been somewhat disheartened to hear, during the course of topical conversation, that many non-IT folk have indeed had the wool pulled over their sheepish eyes by Camerons' obviously deliberate conflation.
Illegal abuse imagery and legal pornography (whatever you or I may think of the latter) are certainly not equatable, and they should definitely not be confused by way of a deliberate act, especially by a government.
Whilst it is difficult to justify any argument against taking proportionate responses to hinder any form of access to abuse imagery, it is also difficult to justify the way in which Cameron has deliberately sought to confuse child abuse with legal adult pornography. This is a highly devious tactic, and one that should should have no place in government.
Cameron has demonstrated a continued willingness - or should that be, a propensity? - to demonise those undertaking legal activities by deliberately confusing them with others who act illegally. For example, tax evasion vs tax avoidance. It is a particular tactic that will likely become more prevalent within the current government.
Camerons' continued willingness to demonise legal activity is quite disturbing. Moralistic opining is not a valid form of governance.
Was: Re: Wait, what?
"Regardless of the heat or cold, we're going to continue to spread like the virus we are"
Hmmm, until now I have never come across a virus that could rant quite like that! Most entertaining :)
Re: It is an engeneering problem not a nuclear problem.
"This should not be a problem in Europe where they are phasing out nuclear power"
According to the European Nuclear Society there are currently a total of 180 operational commercial nuclear power plant units in operation throughout Europe (not counting 5 in the Asian part of the Russian Federation).
Of the 180 operational units some 53 or so are in France. Originally licensed to operate for 30 years, the French units are now subject to a 10 year review to permit continued operation. This is mainly due to the prohibitive cost of building new units. To date, I believe 2 units have been granted a 10 year extension.
8 units in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia were closed as part of countries' accession to the EU. The Germans are to close and decommission the small number of units (8 or 9) they operate.
17 units are currently under construction in Finland, France, the Russian Federation, the Slovakian Republic and Ukraine.
Of course, most commercial plants that have so far been closed/decommissioned to date have been closed/decommissioned due to either reaching the end of their life, or for safety reasons (i.e those in the former East Germany), not because of any switch of mindset, such as the one the Germans have recently experienced.
So, in a nutshell and ignoring normal end-of-life closures and as yet 'still to be built' nuclear construction projects, there were 8 units closed during the course of accession to the EU and 8 or 9 to be closed in Germany with 17 currently under construction, with additional numbers still under consideration for construction.
So, in the immediate future, nuclear in Europe is here to stay. However, due to end of life closures combined with a lack of funding for building replacement facilities, it's highly probable that we may see more countries follow the lead of the French. That is, to consider extending the life of existing commercial units whilst desperately wondering what other than nuclear is going to solve the looming energy crisis.
It's not really a phasing out of nuclear in Europe, more a case of, "Oh shit, how the eff are we going to fund replacement units?".
Experimental, prototype and demonstration facilities are of course excluded from the above figures.
Re: No Technical Details?
All valid questions. However, somewhat of an irrelevance beyond mere technical interest. Anyone old enough to think for themselves will be able to circumvent any such filter with next to no effort at all.
The questions I would like to see answered relate to access logging, data collection and storage, oversight etc.
For those who want to protest silently, I'd say sign up for the smut filter and just continue to access the material they claim they can 'block' anyway.
Yes, this is situation is better than yet more moronic government sponsored legislation, but as it stands it is still highly questionable.
If, at any time, you wear a tin foil hat one may ponder upon events since the key escrow debacle in the 90's, the governments bygone love for Phorm etc. and perhaps conclude that there may in fact be a deeper motivation being illustrated by our elected representatives.
"Time won't flow backwards at all, but orthogonally, whatever that might imply."
Assuming that it 'flows' at all of course :)
Re: Time travel
"Agree. On the other hand photons don't experience the passage of time at all - interesting."
At this juncture would someone care to point me to where this (arrow of) time, across (or though) which we would travel, is found in the fundamental laws of physics :)
With respect to travelling back in time, if this were in any real sense possible, would it not require breaking the second law of thermodynamics?
Re: Primate change
"I personally believe these climate change stories are a ploy to tax us more."
You are not necessarily wrong. All you need do is to review the scope of global taxation that the United Nations wants to levy on industrialised nations to see that you are in fact right.
The UN is hell bent on introducing global taxation. Admittedly it may well have a laudable agenda, but I suspect that some within the UN see the IPCC as a route to milking one possible cash cow, namely (C)AGW.
Re: OMG Zombie keeps rising @ btrower
"Erm, it's pretty basic chemistry and physics.... It's true that there are lots of more complicated underlying factors..."
Let me get this right. First you are saying that it's just simple physics and chemistry and then, to paraphrase, you say, 'Well, ok it's not really that simple as in reality it's really, really complicated.'
Can you not see a logic problem there?
" you wouldn't want to be hypocrites, right?"
David, whilst we are discussing hypocrisy, please formulate a historically factual sentence using the following words: United States of America, hypocrisy, terrorism, Irish Republican Army.
You wouldn't want to be hypocrites, right?
"Alleged Suffolk hacker cuffed by Blighty's plods in separate investigation"
Sadly it'll never happen, but I really do think it's about time the UK (and the EU countries in general) grew a spine (or even pretended to have a spine), looked the over-reaching, self-important and hypocritical American political and judicial systems squarely in the eye and said a big, "Fuck you!"
Please come back and wake me up when you have something cogent or interesting to say.
Maybe it's just the way I explain myself, but my intent was not to say that the sun dominates or indeed plays a major role (I think that point should have been clear to most). But rather, I was attempting to say that science (think physicists, for example - as opposed to climatologists) don't yet know enough about the subject matter to be absolutely certain. Science is NOT about concensus, it never has been and it never will be.
Remember, physicists still know very little about the sun. Climatologists know much, much less. On that basis alone it is folly for climatologists to simply dismiss it without a lot of additional science. TSI, SSI, cosmic rays. All rather simplistic analysis for what are, after all, simplistic climate models with many known issues.
At the end of the day, AR5 like all of it's predecessors is just a 'best guess' and a best guess that is rooted in incomplete science, occasionally modified data and an underlying political agenda (just read what some authors have written with regard to political pressure and the politically correct appointment of poorly post qualified individuals).
Don't get me wrong, there is a problem and we do not yet have the definitive answers - neither do the IPCC.
Now, replace the IPCC with something open, transparent and free from political pressure and it's message may carry better.
"On one hand you have a star so far away and constant that variations in it's output amount to differences of just 0.4wm-2 in incoming energy hitting the earth.
On the otherhand you have a greenhouse gas which is acknowledged by scientists and skeptics alike to reduce outgoing radiation by 3.7wm-2 every time it doubles in concentration."
Ah, the old TSI/SSI chestnut and an affirmation of a personal confirmation bias?
Reducing the impact of the Sun to such a simple definition, because it just happens to suit an argument or, because, as a scientific community, we know next to nothing about the subject matter is just too easy, don't you think?
With time, it may indeed hold that solar forcing is negligible when measured against anthropogenic sources. However, at this time, science (not climatology, but science - physics) knows precious little about our nearest star, let alone the impact that may have on our planet, and how.
But at the end of the day, the influence of the Sun is actually defined by far more than just the idiotically simplistic measure of TSI/SSI. Science understands this, climatologists choose to ignore this.
This is one of the problems I have with current IPCC shenanigans. The 'scientific concensus' (scientific concensus, really?) is all to happy to paint a picture as scientific fact when it is, in fact, a 'guesstimate' based on incomplete science.
Portraying a best guess as scientific fact used to be a heresy. How the world is changing.
Clunking Fist: "So we go from 250parts per million in preindustrial times to close to 500 parts now? That a change from 0.025% to 0.05%."
NomNomNom: "Are you really not aware that the CO2 response is logarithmic? Therefore 250ppm to 500ppm is a 100% increase. But yeah if you rewrite it as small %s you can hide that inconvenient fact."
You should both be debating a figure of ~400ppm.
But please, don't let little issues like accuracy spoil your debate.
"If the trend continues, the environmental movement may have to ask itself some questions."
In reference to say Balcombe, the environmental movement should be asking itself:
1) Is it responsible to take your your kids with you to a camped protest, post-indoctrination, and get them to carry placards or to sit in the middle of a public highway?
2) WTF has CND got to do with it anyway?
3) Does the world really care if Druids support your cause?
4) How does wandering about with A.C.A.B. placards promote your cause or prove your argument?
5) Does the world and his dog really want to see you walking about naked?
6) Is fracking really a good enough excuse to promote a socialist rebellion?
7) YTF weren't you all at work, or down the benefits office?
Re: Well, actually…
"Nope. Once sent, a letter is the property of the recipient for them to do with as they please, including but not limited to public disclosure."
A rather sweeping and inaccurate statement, making assumptions about legal jurisdictions.
For example, in the UK the ownership of the letter, as opposed to the words, is with the person it was sent to. The words remain the "property" of the sender. However there are exceptions and/or defences to copyright infringement.
There are also restrictions on commercial use of such communications in some jurisdictions.
Further a breach of confidence may also arise.
You also fail to address the Berne Convention and, for Europeans, the European Convention on Human Rights, parts of which deal with respect for correspondence and is one of the rights protected.
It's not quite as straightforward as you would have us believe.
Re: Biggest problem
Robert stated, "The biggest problem is uncontrolled population growth" and you replied with, "I'll sum up your post for you: Wealthy Western white guy hates brown-skinned people".
Seriously? I mean, wow. That's not what he said at all. He did not even imply such a thing. That's some chip you have on that shoulder of yours.
"The global population will soon begin decline."
So says you...
The UN figures show 3 projections for the end of the century. High: Population approaches 16 billion. Medium: Population starts leveling off at just over 10 billion. Low: Population peaks at just over 8 billion and crashes to just over 6 billion.
"All in all, your prediction lacks a credible supporting argument."
All in all, you simply infer what you want and cherry pick data to support your own personal bias.
I spy with my beady eye permission control beginning with 'ICO'
You know, it springs to mind that some app developers and their data controllers (i.e. think UK only for a limited scope) are absolutely ripe for a good education/hiding from the ICO*
*It seems that the ICO believe quite a few developers/data controllers are unaware of their current legal obligations. As a result the ICO are currently preparing formal documentation on this matter. Hopefully 'gimme all ya got' data collection and retention policies for mobile apps won't be around for too much longer (in the UK at least).
Re: Mars Hulk Smash
C/2013 A1: 1:120,000 chance of impact, down from 1:8,000 :(
Nominal distance: 76,325 miles.
Minimum distance: 9,085 miles.
Maximum distance: 146,570 miles
JPL link: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=C%2F2013%20A1;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=1;rad=0#cad
The Musings of a Bored Person
You know what? I was reading an exchange of comments posted to a local rag site just earlier today, where the readers were discussing anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Along came a perfectly natural enquiry from a layman (as most of us are) questioning certain aspects of AGW. Needless to say the doom-sayers immediately pounced all over the poor guy. Unfortunately, thereafter name-calling became the order of the day. The AGW crowd were lambasting the poor sod for simply raising a perfectly reasonable question for a lay-person to raise. He had dared assault/insult the foundations of their church. They would not tolerate it. After all, how dare he?!
Now, in response one particularly vocal AGW started droning on about Venice and how it was the perfect fit for AGW that any fool could not fail to understand. Mr AGW said it's a disaster of human proportion engineered by man's obsession to pollute our fair planet with CO2. But oh, dear. Mr AGW had just made a complete arse out of himself.
It was subsequently pointed out to him that contrary to his belief that positive eustasy (or negative, depending upon your perception) was going to drown the Venetians, the Venetians were perhaps slightly more to blame than AGW.
He shuddered when told that recent research (Bock et.al, 2012) acknowledged that seal-level rise thereabouts was about 2mm/year but that subsidence caused natural factors and by over-draining of a deep aquifer was also responsible for between 1-4mm/year (depending upon location). Further, he was aghast at the idea of the Adriatic plate daring to subduct by maybe 1mm/year.
Venice subsided around 120 mm during the previous century due to natural process and human activity. It experienced a sea level rise 110 mm during the same period. So, was AGW (or just general eustasy) the main culprit? Of course not. But lo, MR AGW was having none of it.
My point? Some AGW proponents treat science and debate too much like a religion. Some even like to use the term 'scientific concensus' as if it has some real meaning. But as pointed out in an above post, it's an absurdity of monumental proportion. Scientific consensus? Pah!
Are we on a solely man-made path to CO2 oblivion? Nah. But we certainly don't help matters though. The AGW crowd are however just too hysterical at times.
Also, one other point has interested me of late. Many hereabouts (me included) are mortified with the governments insistence to censor legal material on the internet. I wonder, how many of those who have called for Lewis Page to be silenced from publishing his climate articles are shouting 'censorship' in relation to the porn filters? Censorship - You can't have it both ways.
Oh. When I created my account here some arse quickly lent over my shoulder whilst I was on the phone and gave me a stupid handle. Can I change it without losing previous posts?
Re: It's NOT the filtering
" Because it's axiomatic that that phrase will go from being 'Child sex pictures', to 'Tory party plans'"
Dont forget to add "elm guest house monday club" to the list.
Re: Sense at last
" A lot of parents simply don't realise what their kids are up to..."
And there lies the complete failure of your argument. Parents /should/ realise what their children are up to. If parents take the time to foster an honest and open relationship with their children, they (the children) will have no problems being open and honest in return. I happen to be able to say with with some authority as I am a parent.
"Next stop - social networking sites, they need to take responsibility for keeping their house in order. I don't see why FB and the like should be letting kids see beheading videos."
Seriously? You think that social networking sites are the big evil for such videos? I'm assuming you say that because that's the only source you have read about in the headlines lately.
Sure, I don't want my kids watching stuff like that, but I don't lay the blame with social networking just because it's the one under the microscope or in the headlines. Anyway, if it's not illegal, it's MY responsibility as a parent to resolve the issue (which I, and yes... even you, can do probably far more efficiently than these silly filters).
Anyway, if your kids are 8 and 11 they should not be on Facebook and if they are not then it is not your place to labour under the misapprehension that you have a right to dictate how I and other parents manage their children.
Maybe you just like to live with the illusion of safety? After all that's all these filters really are.
Re: Normalization with the real world......
"They are not saying you can't view porn, just that if you want to you have to actively go and get it"
What they say, and the reality of the situation are 2 completely different things. You'll be able to opt in to having the filters applied and still be able to access the filtered content. The filtering is as good as worthless. They know it, you know it, I know it.
By all means filter out illegal porn and actively pursue the perpetrators across international borders. Surely no-one can argue against that? But as for the legal stuff, leave that to the individual or parents to control.
As for the argument about accidentally stumbling across porn, that's easily solved with a little education and trust in your children. If you can't trust the kids in question not to follow the rules, you will be able to trust that they will get around the filters in no time at all. And if a child is too young to comprehend the rules then I'd venture they are too young to be left unsupervised.
Re: Don't knock passion
"Linus is a man of passion, a man through whom we have the best operating system on the planet."
No. Linux is most certainly not the best operating system on the planet. It is demonstrably not the most secure and it is definitely not the most stable. What is is however is the best of the 3 popular operating systems in use, but that is all it is.
Re: Nice guys come second
"> Sounds like Linus has pretty much lost it.
> No. You just sound like an uniformed idiot. This has been his management style from the beginning. He hasn't "lost" anything. He never had it to begin with and it didn't seem to do him or his project any harm at all.
>You may want to be a a whiny little b*tch but it's hard to argue with success."
Is shouting at a woman here any worse than say shouting at a man? Nope. Definitely not.
Is shouting, swearing and demeaning people in general acceptable? In certain situations and environments, definitely. But this is not one of them.
Does this instance demonstrate good management skills? No.
Does this instance demonstrate poor management skills. Not necessarily.
Is Linus perfection incarnate? Absolutely not. He has his failings and his stresses like the rest of us. He's only human and is certainly not omnipotent.
Maybe he's a just perfectionist with anger management issues. Whatever he is, if he can dish it he should be able to take it.
Would he tolerate the same 'abuse'? If not, he's a twat - move on. If he can, not a problem just shout back and be done with it, or just flutter the eyebrows, smile politely and dish a little feminine sarcasm.
It's a storm in a teacup.
Re: Official! Cameron + fiends = Shit for Brains
Nope. However, I can think of about 649 who should :)