“Educate users not to open files that they are not expecting,” says Woodward
Already been done; already failed.
600 posts • joined 13 Aug 2007
Already been done; already failed.
Given the Pixel's price point, can this really be seen as a volume product?
And should it be niche rather than volume, does it still represent a "best-practice" example phone for other OEMs to follow rather than a serious challenge?
HR and marketing types have best people?
Her criticisms and indeed examples do not demonstrate her declared target.
Not that the tech industry isn't full of them, but not because it is the tech industry.
High frequency trading: what true value does it bring as opposed to paper-only gains?
An impossibility I'm sure, but I'm sure that slowing down trading stocks/shares rather than speeding them up might bring the useful pressure to "know what the hell you are buying/selling".
No bad design?
Never used Lotus Notes then?
My initial instinct would be to agree: but it is likely that in order to demonstrate a solid selection process, the public need to see what was not selected to ensure a clearly better bid was not overlooked. Potentially this could be voluntary on the side of the failed bidder(s) as, if their bid was fair / better, then allowing the publication of that bid could be an effective tool in forcing the selection to be more honest in future - potentially even allowing for an appeal process.
Exclusions for commercial confidentiality on a public contract simply has to end. Too many cosy deals with public employees coming from / going to the external companies in question.
If you want to do public work, then expect the public to see what you are up to.
Long-term this should help other companies effectively compete and force the public sector selection process be explained fully and clearly (we picked the third most expensive options as they were the first bid capable of delivering their proposal - here's our working).
Researchers could do so in collaboration with the NHS if additional medical data was eventually added - I suspect phase I as it stands would take them a good decade!
But never allow access to the raw data: only on-NHS-site controlled access to the limited fields required and no copying/caching thereof, after an open consultation on the public benefit to the research being carried out at all. Making tax money is not enough: its either target positive health outcomes that are reasonably accessible by the public or no access.
Or not. I've only spent a minute thinking it up!
For example: Opt-in might need to be more refined than an all-or-nothing setting, allowing opt-in for specific records (x-rays of fractures for example) and assuming opt-out of any other record. This all gets very complex very quickly, so build something very simple first!
Patient opt-in system
Patient must be able to opt-out after opt-in
Get Patient's GP's phone number
Encryption, access control and access/change logging etc. implemented from day 1
Extendable system but no *requirement* for any other data <otherwise every health professional wants all their data file formats to be "standards" in the UK-wide database - never going to happen; queue massive bun-fight and resistance and another £8m down the drain>
Set up a charity to hold and manage the data, who's charter is inviolate and does not permit sharing data outwith the NHS *ever* (ever isn't possible really, but using a charitable "buffer" makes it harder for some future douchebag parliament to play fast-and-loose with the data)
Get that system working reliably and then come back for more if you make it...
What purposes *will* it be used for?
Given Google's tendency to loose interest in their latest this-that-or-the-other, how many developers will take the risk that working in this new environment is worth it over the long haul?
The usual line is "Google did not make anyone available for comment" or the like.
Google itself was (most likely) available for comment but chose not to make one.
Who cares? Beer for everybody!
As indeed did I .My very next thought was "but it isn't April 1st."
It's considerably worse than the London 2012 / Lisa Simpson shocker.
We once had a neighbour who's burglar alarm suffered similarly, though it was wet weather that it suffered from. It took months of phoning the police to check-up on the "break-in" (particularly after they had asked us to stop) until such time as the police decided the bother of getting the owner to fix their alarm was less than the bother of talking to us again.
Why is the cable identifying itself as anything other than "USB-C compliant"?
Any information beyond that should be between the things connected by the cable...?
(Answer is very likely an over-engineered "cable" but it would be nice to know in what way!)
That is all.
A fundraiser for an organisation with more money than it knows what to do with.
Other than trying to get even more of course.
"The Nexus 5 ... doesn't have the hardware chops to run the new operating system."
Is it not possible to write a better OS that doesn't have an even greater hardware requirement than its forbears? Or just not desirable?
Art imitating life eh? Who knew?!
"IICSA would not name the head of security nor was it prepared to detail the staffer's qualifications or experience"
Name of person? A senior role in a public office equals no expectation of privacy.
Qualifications? Absolutely no expectation of privacy.
It certainly looks like FOI should apply to the structure of the body (though not their evidence / deliberations thereon obviously)
Until enough web owners are made bankrupt for allowing 3rd parties access to their customers, this will never stop. The ad companies might not like it, but we are long past the point where ads can be delivered without being vetted by somebody who's job is on the line.
In the age of streaming, DVD sales are doing very well despite being an even more "forgotten" format. Blu ray's higher price is worth it for films with hi-level special effects, but otherwise why pay 30%+ over the DVD cost for pretty much the same viewing experience?
You've still got to get the power to the light so the wiring behind the plaster isn't going anywhere.
I thought similarly at first glance but the Falkirk wheel is really a super-duper lock rather than an super duper aqueduct. Super, duper regardless though!
Is it only me that would rather NextCloud?
Though it sure look like it...
Oh well, scratch that then.
And the sue the Irish judiciary for acceding to political interference.
Questions only: I have not worked in this area myself.
The "type 2" example seems to assume that Customer_Name is unique and fixed, else one could not traverse from the current record to a previous record unless one also adds a previous Customer_ID column, which would make it "not type 2". What did I miss here?
As for the type 6 example, is that Current_Flag column really worth the extra column when the data is derivable from the End_Date column? Would a Date/Time test on End_Date be notably slower than a bool check on Current_Flag Y/N? Would that depend if the date was a string or a DateTime?
Not obvious: Which often boils down to "not done before" (which isn't the same but there you go)
Inventive : A requirement so rarely met, is it really a requirement anymore?
Utility: Must be useful (in its own right, not as a legal tool for bashing the competition!)
Embodiment: Somebody skilled-in-the-art must be able to read the patent and use it to build a device that does the useful thing.
The patent referred to has lots of "may this", "might that", "one could try this" and so on but doesn't seem to say "do this to achieve the useful thing in a manner a skilled-in-prior-art person would not have thought of" and so the requirements look a tad sketchy IMHO.
I'm sure there are laws about that kind of thing...?
If you had to pay for the software they'd still sell your data.
Maximum profits are the only target,
"If you're not into metal, you are not my friend"
There was always a good slice of comedy in metal!
But the sales pitch sounds like "Don't want to be responsible for the data? Get on board!"
With the likely intent that nobody can be identified as the DataController.
If you have access to the heart rate on a treadmill, you likely have access to all the rest of its data too: patient name; age; weight; cause for test and so on (used to program the treadmill sequence appropriately). Add all that data up; fail the test; get hacked by the medical insurance man's phone who is sitting having a coffee upstairs; find one's insurance cancelled / premiums raised all of a sudden.
I very much enjoyed his work here.
Condolences to all his friends and family.
It also applies to a dynamic arrays allocated by malloc: so long as the operation(s) in question can be seen not to resize a local array, then only two boundary checks are required (e.g. a for loop over a const * const pointer)
Case is a right bother for text entry on a phone/tablet is one instance.
Is there a crime for "wilfully adding the breach of constitutional rights" that can be applied to senator(s) (and any politicos, think-tank members, public servants and lobbyists) so we can round these people up and stop them attempting the same shit over and over?
I'd argue it doesn't, but to many, the author seemingly included, it seems that way.
Form the developer documentation: "Caution Although the directories provided by getExternalFilesDir() and getExternalFilesDirs() are not accessible by the MediaStore content provider, other apps with the READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE permission can access all files on the external storage, including these. If you need to completely restrict access for your files, you should instead write your files to the internal storage".
Sounds like you need to read the permissions somewhat better.
Android's shoddy approval system ("access files == access all files" for example) and the lack of permissions-on-action is the reason that my "smart phone" is most decidedly dumb. Two extra apps and that's my lot: every download is a risk I am not prepared to take. Hell, I don't even allow vanilla google apps to keep on with their rampant rights bloat - there are an ever growing list of google apps I haven't updated in months due to extra permissions.
They aren't thick, so the fact google doesn't seriously revisit the permissions suggests they don't want to for internal reasons. Tin-foil hat time?
But a better policy would have been "we will not do this".
Such rules have a simple basis: that management are simpletons and don't know how to allocate (and, were they competent, to modify) budgets, so they apply a simple rule, sit back, do sod all and take the (considerable) paycheck.
So we have a group of idiots doing nothing paying competent (or not) others to do nothing too.
will soon becomes metaless data when linked/copied into any other social media site (including the BBC et al) as inevitably will done by some clueless friend/relative/colleague.
Good effort though.
The technical debt of the NHS is quite simply staggering. Even costing it would be a staggeringly expensive job. And while the FDA has nothing to do with the NHS, the companies that make medical equip must adhere to the (worst) requirements of both which are onerous indeed. As medical companies outwith phrama tend not to make much money, they aren't going to verify/validate the upgrade path for old equip they make nothing on, nor add new security features. So to be blunt: this isn't going to change, even if bad things do happen as a result.
In mass-market use, won't this just lead to yet more highly-resistant bacteriological strains evolving?
For example: "access to files" refined into a set of permissions such as "access to files written and maintained by this application" (general app); "access to all file names and dates" (file manager app) and so on.
Who pays the piper etc. The ICIJ belongs to the Center for Public Integrity:
I'm going to guess that the leak is likely honest enough. The processing of that leak will likely be politically/economically "regulated". then again, I'm a cynic in such matters, as I already belived this to be true without the papers!
Old companies rarely create new stuff: new companies do that.
The old companies try to survive by buying the new companies, which they rarely understand well. I suggest that this is because companies typically act like living things, trying to survive come hell or high-water, when they should be no more that economic vehicles for getting stuff done - created for active purpose and allowed to dissolve once that purpose is no longer significant.
A better scenario is for the shareholders to sell their shares in the old and buy shares in the new, letting the old company dissolve when it no longer has anything to do. But that requires CEOs and employees who are not afraid of loosing position and "face" with a faster company-death cycle and shareholders who actively know about the companies they own. I don't see either of those things happening any time soon, so it is little more than idle speculation: never going to happen.