Politicians and Crypto
Forever talk. Get slightly worked up. Someone explains a few things. Rinse and repeat.
It's kind-of a lingering bad smell. Ignore if you can.
669 posts • joined 16 Jan 2007
Forever talk. Get slightly worked up. Someone explains a few things. Rinse and repeat.
It's kind-of a lingering bad smell. Ignore if you can.
I thought it was $two billion. But what's a billion between friends? It's not as if one could take a profit of that kind and then bankroll Ubuntu .... oh, hang on ...
MySQL had a commercial element before Sun overpaid for it. Let alone Oracle's time.
Sun paid handsomely for MySQL, and would doubtless have been happy to go on paying His Lordship a very ample salary while also having a leading say in ongoing development. One might suggest, a happy and successful outcome to someone wanting to do open source and make a living from it. Yet he not merely turned down that opportunity, but savaged the hand that fed him.
Only with an opensource project could he have his cake again having already eaten it. IMHO you need a lot of ruthlessness and brass neck to do both. While I respect mixed business models, I think on balance I'd sleep easier with Larry's MySQL than the serial teaser-merchant.
Corbyn was on the wireless this morning 'clarifying' the situation by saying what he actually looked for and couldn't find was two seats together for himself and his missus.
OK, fairy nuff, though it's more usually youngsters who prioritise keeping a group together over getting seats. But it begs the question: was his wife sitting with him on the floor? His own video should show that. If she's with him, that supports his story, or at least today's version. If not, then he pulled a stunt, and is now in a hole and still digging.
Isn't it actually a joint venture, with Stagecoach as lead partner and majority owner?
As a very small stagecoach shareholder, I don't think I'll lose sleep over this. Strikes are (potentially) more of an issue if that situation were to escalate.
Radio 4 recently broadcast a reconstructed episode of Hancock's Half Hour, where he gets himself a telescope and starts seeing things. This story could so easily have been one of his.
BBC website isn't responding just now, so I can't follow/confirm the link from google, but the Tony Hancock Appreciation Society's website lists it as Series 3, episode 7.
Thebunker hosting here in Blighty has been around quite a few years, on similar sites acquired from the military. I daresay they'd be happy to explain the advantages if asked. I understand security features quite prominently in the business case.
Coincidence? Or is the acquisition of military sites by hosting companies a match made in heaven?
"Bad at multitasking" here presumably means "don't want some idiot interrupting uninvited".
I do often take notice of popups. Just enough notice to adblock the buggers and get rid of them for good.
Much GPL software is likewise pretty much a copy
If that claim is true, and if it applies to code in question here (two big assumptions), then it would be a defence for VMWare to say "no, we didn't copy the GPL code, we copied the similar BSD code".
Was that defence used? If yes, then I'd expect the report to comment on it. If no then your claim is utterly irrelevant.
Who said anything about smart meters? I was referring to the energy regulator's proposals to circulate your details to every spammer and his dog if you decline to play their game and stick with a single provider for three years!
Thou shalt be a whore or face the consequences!
Am I the only one to think that, compared to what the Energy Market folks are proposing, this is a thoroughly Good Thing?
Energy market: we WILL circulate all your details to lots of spammers. You need to jump through hoops if you want to opt out.
Banking Market: it's all in a smartphone app. So the opt-out is obvious.
No mention whether this builds on ARM or from a clean slate, or may have projects in both camps. Does this have potential to lead in due course to an ecosystem to rival ARM?
Not saying it's likely: the market remains ARM's to lose. But if a realistic challenge were to arise, it would start with a technology consortium that might just possibly look something like this. And coming after ARM appears to be turning Japanese, an event that might just have rung alarm bells in China.
They rested on their laurels in the first half of the 2000s,
Yes, I know.
But what came first? Stagnation or lawsuits? My impression was that the trauma of the NTP nonsense was a trigger for a change in corporate culture that stifled innovation. But that's not based on any real knowledge.
Any reg readers who were RIM engineers in the '90s and/or '00s, your insights would be great!
Oh, and none of those keyboard 'phones you pointed at would be a substitute for the E71. Too big to fit comfortably in the hand or pocket.
I thought the story was one of the NTP pirates turning a former innovator into a company driven by lawyers. Kind of, bitten by the undead, and you become them. But if they sued someone else as early as 2002, that suggests they may not have been innocent victims even at the start of it all.
Does El Reg have the journalistic resources to give a decent history of how, when and where it really started going wrong? I mean, with a bit more meat than this little list, and with a timeline comparing the decline of engineering and innovation to the rise of lawsuits, and such things?
And with both Blackberry and Nokia down the plughole, where can I get a phone with decent mini querty keyboard? I still *really* miss the Nokia E71!
My guess would be that Moedas regards funding as a privilege and not a right.
Erm, are you suggesting he was less than sincere?
All he can do is (re)state EU policy. He can't micromanage individual decisions by individual teams. He can't even hear appeals: that would ultimately be for a court, not a civil servant.
Academics are concerned with planning their projects. One element of that is to deal with risks. Those risks have just changed, and we shouldn't be surprised if that affects planning decisions. Nor if those adversely affected are unhappy.
Has anyone started a petition against being put in a government-sanctioned spam list and having (at best) to jump through hoops to opt out?
Where do I sign? Or if it doesn't exist, where do I go to create it?
RoseRoss, you're not damned for doing a deal with El Reg and getting them to publish. It's the timing that's an issue. If the publication date was out of your control, move the bloomin' earlybird deadline instead and you'll still come across as honest!
The classic con-man line. No pressure there then.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
The BBC's investigative department has run a number of articles about criminals hijacking a phone number to get through a victim's SMS authentication. Fairly recently they persuaded one of the main banks (I forget which) to drop it after several verified cases.
That's why we have better technologies, going back as far as PGP, and forward to Milagro for the next quantum leap.
OK, that is a direct quote, and it's not even something that's completely different taken in context.
Does anyone have contact details for that httpoxy page? It really needs correcting. It's true that a Proxy: header plays no role in implementing HTTP, but it's absolutely wrong to suggest that a standards-compliant agent will never use it.
Standards-compliant HTTP clients and servers will never read or send this header
Not quite correct. HTTP allows agents to define custom headers, so "Proxy" is allowed as such. To the bog-standard server, such as Apache or nginx out-of-the-box, it's as meaningful as "Vhjsrmwb" or "jasswe33d". And equally harmless.
The problem is that due to popular convention many web servers simply prefix HTTP_
That's not popular convention, it's the original CGI standard - which is inherited by all the CGI-imitators like PHP. A way to make headers available to applications that might be interested. All HTTP end-to-end or undefined headers except a few enumerated ones SHOULD be treated this way, but MAY be suppressed if they give rise to security issues.
The trouble arises where languages and libraries use HTTP_PROXY to mean something they shouldn't be taking from untrusted input. I haven't tested it, but I should imagine Perl used with taint-checking (as it always should be on the web) is safe. On the other hand, PHP is always vulnerable to everything, and more generally YMMV. Hence the web servers taking it on themselves to block an incoming Proxy header from propagating to the CGI environment.
The good news is that Apache and others are preventing the Proxy header specifically from being turned into an environmental variable, but we can't just automatically drop it because that is unexpected and somewhat rude.
Actually we can just drop it. If the backend application has a legitimate use for an HTTP_PROXY environment variable, it can be set in the server configuration, for example with Apache's SetEnv directive. But not from an untrusted source.
I bought at £8.55 earlier this year. It's not been above £10.75 until this morning and Independence served ARM well as most of their revenue is in dollars
Friday's closing price was £11.89, and that wasn't any sudden jump.
I bought ARM for under £1 (indeed, just under 80p at best). It stayed around £1 for a year or two, and only really took off when it leaked to the financial markets that it was in the Iphone. Someone is looking for a repeat performance with IoT, after a few years in the £10 ballpark.
ARM is still my biggest single shareholding. My inclination as shareholder is to vote against any loss of independence. It'll take more than a just a five-figure boost to my pot to change my vote: it'll need a convincing story about being a Good Thing for the industry (can't see that), or at worst a real fabulous "retire rich" premium (which I doubt even Apple could offer).
So, what will the big institutional shareholders do? Who's pulling their strings?
Isn't one of the big motivators here supposed to be mobility? Reduce the number of people socially-excluded by virtue of being medically unable to drive.
It isn't something to be that proud of, when that safety comes at the expense of so many kids being stuck at home because their parents don't dare to let them out. Not to mention my late neighbour - who could walk only slowly on two sticks - being stuck at home because parked cars block the pavements and going round them was too hazardous.
De-facto house arrest for the vulnerable is a terrible price to pay for the relative safety of the more-privileged.
We've had a UK Great Firewall for years. Google "Internet Watch Foundation". Hit the headlines in 2008 when it momentarily blocked wikipedia.
You enforce it by making it illegal for a non-compliant company to do business.
Same as any other regulation. If a company makes a car with no brakes, it would (I presume) not be legal to sell those for use on Europe's roads. Or all those lead-painted toys we used to import.
Agreed, they didn't cheat. Pleased to see mine is just one of many upvotes for that comment.
By contrast, El Reg did cheat. A clickbait headline suggesting a really interesting story, leading to this.
I like spineless gits. Imagine how bad things would be if the clueless twits did something.
W.S. Gilbert put that point rather well in 1882, taking a long historic perspective.
I only hope that his leaving UKIP doesnt mean that he is defecting to the conservatives where he might end up in a position with some influence.
What, and be expected to kowtow to another leader? I think that calls for a milliner to do the catering.
The EU laws are decided upon and drawn up by an unelected council. The elected members only get to vote on whether it passes or fails (they might have a right to amend, I'm not sure).
Bit like Westminster then. Or would be, if "EU laws" existed.
People have tried to improve democratic accountability within the EU, but UK governments (of both parties) have blocked such attempts. Perhaps the reason we can get out now is because eastward expansion has made it unlikely they'll get agreement on that kind of reform any more even without the UK to block it?
Sorry but that is absolutely the case due to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, whether you or I think it is right or wrong.
Isn't parliamentary sovereignty supposed to be the question at issue? Those who say a Prime Minister can act without it are denying that sovereignty.
Under UK law, only a court can say who's right. Not the PM, nor parliament, nor the people. Indeed (shock, horror) not even Reg commentards.
Funny definition of gerrymandered.
You miss the point.
The whole point of the referendum was to deal with the Tory party split. So many things were gerrymandered in favour of the maximum Out vote, so they'd have the maximum lack of credibility crying Foul.
Hence gerrymandering the electorate, the date, and the terms of debate.
Hence "negotiating" that worse-than-useless pretend-two-wrongs-make-a-right deal.
Everyone saw it as an internal Tory party row, which of course wrong-footed most of the non-Tory-party population and the rest of the world. Even the electoral commission played along, appointing the Tory Out faction rather than the Faragists as the official out campaign to keep things within the Party.
Maybe the Vatican runs ISP and proxy services? Maybe the Vatican has licensed out some of its allocated IP numbers? Or other such explanations.
That would seem broadly equivalent to some of the places around the world - from Moscow to Minneapolis - that IP location services have placed me without any such thing as a VPN.
The referendum was gerrymandered, not least by reneging on the 2015 manifesto commitment to enfranchise Brits long-term abroad (as I pointed out back in February). If the same happens to this and other petitions, shouldn't that just be seen as par for the course?
Unless the ISPs defy the court order, this would seem a non-story. They're not taking any kind of a stand by refusing to hand over details without a court order.
Though it could become a story if something interesting happens after handing over the details. For instance, the customer was offering free wifi and can't be held responsible for its users. Or can it? Now the world is worried again over public wifi ....
They could. I have no insight into how such legislation might work in practice: whether there might be unintended consequences.
Maybe if the EU rules prove successful you could start to lobby the UK government to legislate along those lines for roaming outside the EU? Or maybe someone is already lobbying?
If we vote for isolation, the total pot of travel is likely to be a little subdued as the UK and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU (and indeed world) take an economic hit. Though perhaps the gap will be filled with more rest-of-world visitors taking advantage of cheaper currency.
Low prices will of course also drive volumes, regardless of anything the EU and the vote may do. I tend to treat roaming data as emergency-only, and stick to wifi spots for connectivity (including VOIP for voice calls). That kind of decision by millions of individuals reacting to high charges makes for a non-zero-sum game.
The EU has history of standing up to US bullying. Even if it has, at times, hinged on a single courageous member (remember ThankPoland?). UK is more likely to roll over and take it from Uncle Sam.
A post-brexit UK, in need of trade agreements with anyone who'll play, will be desperate for whatever it can get. So that'll be US patents automatically enforceable here. Along with all those other little things - like no question of labelling US food imports that might contain growth hormones illegal here, lest such labelling be prejudicial to their ability to sell (and of course the corollary, nothing to be labelled as free of such things, or GM, or whatever).
A Freudian slip for our times?
I take it you're not one of the many reg commentards who would've screamed loudly about UK citizens' personal data being outsourced to a commercial entity and to servers in jurisdictions lacking our level of data protection?
There are a lot of people who care about that kind of thing, and would take a dim view if it happened. They might very well seek and get a court order declaring it illegal.
Anyway, a sufficient DoS attack can bring any server down for a while (see my post below for thoughts on who might've expected to benefit from that).
Can we say one way or the other whether anyone might have deliberately DoSed the system? Cui bono?
The alacrity with which a minority of "out"ers jumped on it with cries of Judicial Review tells us someone thinks they may have something to gain from what happened: they're preparing the ground for a "vote again until you get it right" scenario. If the deadline hadn't been put back, they exclude a bunch of voters who everyone supposes to be predominantly-young, predominantly-in. A win-win for a DoS attack.
If it was regular cockup - lack of capacity - it would seem more than likely it should've gone down again before the extended deadline. As noted on Wednesday (before the event), whether it survived Thursday would provide cockup-vs-conspiracy evidence.
Tidal is what we (UK) should be concentrating on above all else. Our geography more than any other country gives us a huge resource to tap.
The downside there is, those countries which have committed more seriously to renewables (from China to the USA to more enlightened Europeans) have proportionally less of it and more of other sources. So noone has taken the lead in developing it. We have some pioneering projects, but only in Scotland have we got a government more-or-less prepared to back their pioneers.
And there still seems to be a lot of ignorance. Generic anti-green knee-jerks and a claim that greens don't like it have already popped up in this thread.
 With possible exceptions amongst tiny island countries whose total needs might be a the size of single UK power station.
Welcome to the Real World.
Though I find your size-ism disturbing.
Pirate Dave, that's usual. Something a bit like that happened to spamhaus a few years back, when some spammer sued in a 'merkin court - to take one example. For the worst abuse of all - albeit not quite the same - see the story of the pirates who used bogus patents to choke Blackberry. Courts look after their own, and 'merkin courts often have global reach.
Perhaps they should blacklist the real sources of confusion. Headed by I, l, 1, and maybe |.
Freedom of speech without the freedom to offend is worthless.
Not worthless. Just nonexistent: it simply isn't free speech.
Je suis some-poor-bugger-probably-not-called-Charlie. 'Cos Charlie Hebdo published things far more offensive than I (or I expect many of those arrested) ever would, but got all the sanctimonious hypocrites lining up to support it.
My personal view? I'm with Voltaire: I support the right to say despicable things. I may also despise those who gratuitously abuse that right, but that doesn't mean sending the heavies after them.
There are many reasons a site might move up or down your google results. Some may be sinister, others realistic, but I don't think any fit both descriptions.
In the case of a political hot topic, it's almost certainly other sites moving up rather than your favourite moving down. Sites that google users click on and appear to stay on (google can see if you return to its results page and try another link after 30 secs). Sites that other people link to in relevant discussion. Etcetera. They've spent 20 years perfecting the engine to bring up the most relevant and interesting results for the most of their users, and doing constant battle with "SEO" spammers who try to subvert that.
If your spanish vendor won't ship to Poland, then they won't have Polish customers. That problem is theirs, and the remedy entirely in their hands. No business of the legislators: that's a complete red herring introduced in your article. No different to a Bristol vendor who declines to ship to Brighton.
If there's a point I'm missing, why not make it instead of introducing such feeble non-arguments?