Death of Apple Predicted, News at Eleven
Again. It seems to come around as regular as clockwork that someone tells us that Apple is dead. And every time it sounds like another sour grapes story.
784 posts • joined 24 Sep 2007
Again. It seems to come around as regular as clockwork that someone tells us that Apple is dead. And every time it sounds like another sour grapes story.
I need a faster timer, five Brextards appeared in microseconds.
To see how long it is before the first knee-jerk pro-Brexit comment appears.
"EATHPC - THAT would work."
It could be improved by adding an initial 'D'.
I'd hope that Linux on ARM was taking over. I've a vested interest in remaining in work for a few years more. Also working with Windows gets more and more painful as time goes by. However Microsoft has a long history of pulling the sort of thing that IBM used to do, where FUD is used to convince the management layer that "No one gets fired for buying
IBM Microsoft." PHBs like that sort of talk and I've encountered several projects which started off sensible but then were diverted down the MS route after a sales person had some words with the PHB and spread the FUD about "An OS designed in a teenager's bedroom".
"Take the STEM degree and do something else instead."
I was a scientist for the first twelve years of my career. If you want a thankless, underpaid job that's it right there. I moved to IT because it was way better paid and more rewarding. I get 10x the pay that I used to as a scientist and I don't regret the move.
Before being absorbed into another organisation F-International stood the tech world on its head by having a ratio of 300 women to 3 men. Set up by the brilliant Stephanie "Steve" Shirley FI proved that a woman dominated business could compete for and win the contracts. Sadly the Sex Discrimination Act forced FI to change their policy. We need more entrepreneurs like Dame Shirley. And probably more sticking plaster for the mouths of some of the knuckle-draggers.
Women deserve the right to work in the industry of their choice. Tech jobs are engaging, interesting and many women work happily in tech industries, they should not be discouraged.
Like not using your real ID on social media and being careful to not provide information that links to you in real life. There's also the ultimate failsafe which is to make sure that you never set foot in the People's Republic of Trumpistan. I mean why would you? The place is awful and they grab every last bit of your personal data that they can when you enter the country.
Learn a European language and absorb a culture that doesn't need treating with heavy-duty antibiotics.
"Nowadays a Range Rover is indistinguishable from many other saloon cars."
No, it's easy to tell it's a Range Rover because it will be driven by an ignorant oik, especially if it is a "Sport" or an Evoque. This didn't use to be the case, Rangies were driven by laid back people. Now it's only bought by the sort of moron who works in marketing or runs a gym or is a parasite of similar kind.
"And presumably created 15,000 redundancies once the film was completed?"
Do we get het up that in the IT industry that jobs are created to build IT systems then those jobs evaporate when the system is handed into operations? No. Because those people will be redeployed on other projects. That's the same in the film industry. People come together to create a movie, then they go on to other things, most of them seem to move to work on another movie. Some of them use the experience to get a job in another media business. I'd say giving 15,000 people work for a period of 2-3 years is good going these days.
"Of any given revenue stream in the content distribution industry, how much actually reaches the writers, performers, what have you? "
I have no idea and neither do you. However the fact that we don't know doesn't give someone the right (in law or morally) to take what they want for free or to distribute that material to who they see fit. The people who create the content have signed deals or employment contracts with the organisations that hold the copyright. They presumably did so happy that they got more or less what they wanted from the deal. The copyright holder is then free to sign deals to distribute the material with whoever they like in order to make a profit. In this copyright holders takes risks, spread risk across projects and try to balance their gains and losses as best they can. The people they employ are not undeserving of their reward in this process.
We can argue about the relative proportions of risk, reward and the balance between "creatives" and those who support the creatives but so far it's the business model that works. It works in Hollywood, Bollywood and Nollywood; it even works in Pineywood. In fact the model isn't confined to the arts, it's pretty much how software publishing works and publishing in general. Yes there are admirable attempts to make an alternative of honesty payment and free distribution work but they aren't working as well as could be hoped for. People, it seems, are not that honest or keen to pay for media once they have viewed it.
Perhaps you could give us your vision of how it can work if people just suck down on unofficial copies distributed through unofficial channels. Bear in mind that in the case of the Pirate Bay et al. The artists don't get a penny and the owners of the sites have been making large amounts of money. That's even less equitable than the official distribution channels.
"You are losing your freedom on the internet to give and share."
Not at all. If you want to commit several years of your life to creating media content then give it away free under a Creative Commons licence, no one will stop you. In fact many will applaud your bravery and there are several people/organisations doing just that.
You can watch all the copyright free movies you want from Archive.org, including some good modern documentaries and the historical archive of recorded material going back to the start of the 20th century. If you like reading there are numerous sites, including Project Gutenberg that will provide legal, copyright free ebooks for your enjoyment. These include recent works by enlightened authors such as Charlie Stross who see that releasing copyright free ebooks hasn't hurt their sales and allows people who can't afford a book or have access to a public library to obtain reading matter.
All of these works you can use and distribute on a share-alike basis.
You can also go to a library, register for a reader's card and access copyright material legally for free or for a low rental.
However, I suspect that your high ideals don't amount to much more than wanting to sit and vegetate in front of a Hollywood "Blockbuster" that you didn't pay for.
"What is Kodi doing wrong if it is just a piece of software that puts all that Google does in one simple format"
That's not what Kodi does. Kodi is a media player, which is open and extensible. The out of the box versions of Kodi do not provide any tools for copyright infringement. It just plays content and is limited to content stored on the local HD, DVD, Blu Ray, CIFS shares and DLNA streams. The issue is that because it is extensible some add-ons are available that are designed to leach copyright material.
It's possible to buy pre-configured boxes (advertised as fully-loaded) that are configured to stream content from copyright infringing sources. I suspect most customers know this and it's what they want but I have encountered some clueless parents badgered into getting a Kodi box by teenage children who say "It's wonderful, I've cancelled Netflix and Sky because we can get brand new movies before they appear in the cinema." They then look very confused if one mentions that the heads bobbing at the bottom of the frame might be a give away that the content is a tad illegal.
So, Kodi is doing nothing wrong but may suffer because third parties are doing something wrong. Eventually Kodi will fail because the human race is greedy and stupid and they can't resist grabbing things for "free" without thinking "How do the people who make this stuff get paid?" Kodi will be punished because no media content provider will collaborate with them or let them have access to code/keys. I wish it wasn't so.
"Do like other companies in trouble, change your company's name."
You mean something to fit with Uber's vaguely Germanic name but to reflect better the caring, sharing side of the company that wishes to look after its workforce and passengers? Something touch-feely.
How about "Protection Team", although it would probably be better rendered in German rather than English.
They could have a nice new logo to go with it, something that represents, protection, safety and the lightning fast response of the taxi company.
"The police and CPS disregarded that fact in their prosecution - arguing that some of the people "looked under 18"."
That is the correct interpretation of the law which says "who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18". The CPS guidance is "The age of a child is a finding of fact for the jury to determine. Expert evidence is inadmissible on the subject..." That is, there is to be no objective evidence of any sort, the test in law is the opinion of the man on the street.
"not everyone on Facebook is British"
Indeed, but Faecebook operates in many different jurisdictions and imposes it's own and local morality in many cases. Hence it rigorously censors the mammary gland and associated apparatus. This seems to be for US sensibilities which hold the nipple to be some sort of evil that will bring doom upon the world. However they also cite other jurisdictions as the concerns for this censorship of even medical and fund-raising (cancer charity) images.
Faecebook also censors to avoid political upset in repressive regimes. It's clear therefore that they have the capability to tailor Faecebook feeds to a local market. It's also clear that they have chosen to *not* do this for paedophile imagery.
"There's probably case law."
There is case law and guess what? It shows that you are wrong. The Crown Court has already convicted someone of possessing prohibited images of children simply for being in possession of (manga) cartoon images. The Judge in that case also made it clear that he considered that "word of mouth, drawings or artistic impressions" fall under the legislation.
"It was explained to me that under UK law cartoon images of child abuse are illegal;"
Correct, that is mostly true. The elements are that the image(s) is/are:
2. photographs or pseudo-photographs of
3. a child.
Cartoons fall under "pseudo-photographs".
"You have to prove something that doesn't exist. "
I acted as an expert witness in a case where a teenager was accused of "making" kiddie porn. When the hard drive of his PC was examined it became obvious that he had not requested the images. Quite the opposite. There were IRC logs that showed someone else asking him if he wanted to "look at some porn" he said "no". Then the other party said "I'll send it anyway." followed by "What did you think of that?" to which the defendant had replied "It's horrible, I deleted it." There was evidence on the drive that he had indeed deleted the image about two minutes after receiving it.
That defence was successful, so it is possible.
"Unfortunately even sending the link means you must have seen the content, which (as I understand it) is in itself, illegal and has no defense."
It isn't seeing the image that is the offence, it is "making an image". Unfortunately there is fairly broad interpretation by the courts of what constitutes "making" an image. Having a thumbnail in your browser's cache is "making an image".
The CPS gives the following examples:
Then there is the more serious offence of "distributing images". This is the offence that traps people who send links because they are "distributing images".
The CPS guidance on that is:
That is, sending a link is sufficient grounds for prosecution because the defendant has "shown" the image to another person.
Quite charmingly, the defendant doesn't even need to have knowledge that the image is one of child abuse.
I don't excuse paedophiles but I am genuinely shocked at how broadly the legislation is drawn and that the legislation makes even innocent acts illegal and it makes it difficult for a journalist to notify the authorities of the existence of this trash. I think in this instance Facebook successfully and rather nastily trolled the BBC journos.
HPE ES and CSC merging possibly ranks only second to LIGO observation GW150914 in which two massive black holes collided to produce something that really sucks.
So, 99 per cent sure she's a man. You too, huh?
"Are you ... Something that can ... commute ... an ... hour's sleep? "
Heck look!, I can cut up the words you type and make them say something different, just like you did!
I said autonomous vehicles would not work well for *personal deliveries*, you know that last bit of the journey, because as stated the environment that the vehicle has to traverse is the most difficult part of the journey. Gates, kerbs, pedestrians etc.
"Paying compensation to military personnel as a result of an on-duty 'incident' might set an unfortunate precedent."
What, like the precedent that they apply to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme which has been in operation since 2005?
... complacency, as ever for a CSO. Of course a CSO must *never* do or say anything that could affect share values, so anodyne announcements are par for the course. However... it took you TWO HOURS to shut down a ransomware attempt?
"He described how one ransomware attacker compromised a staffer's machine which off site, and began encrypting files across the corporate network once the infected computer was connected to the office intranet."
Yes.. and how does that happen? He appears to be trying to give the impression that some nasty "attacker" succeeded in somehow compromising the computer of a "staffer" while the machine was off site. No doubt some incredibly clever and devious technical attack that sneaked past the robust configuration and defences of the corporate machine. Which is bollocks.
Mr Occam says that the "staffer" did something stupid. They were phished or spear phished, or they were browsing pr0n on a corporate computer or downloading WaReZ or something equally stupid such as using USB sticks that had been used on an internet-facing system. But the event was not detected by the AV fitted to the machine (if any) and when re-connected to the corporate network it started on its merry way to do what ransomware does. If it was from a USB stick then shame on Airbus for not having end-point protection.
That is a gross failure on the part of Airbus to secure their machines properly, on the part of the employee doing something with a corporate machine that they shouldn't have been doing and again on the part of Airbus for not providing appropriate training about the need to ensure that dodgy crap doesn't end up on a corporate system.
" Every storage facility insists on you using your own lock "
No they don't.
"Here's the fun bit: it's also actually illegal in Europe. Not the very act itself, but to gain permission to access personal information you must obtain permission EXPLICITLY, NOT IMPLICITLY under EU privacy laws"
You are failing to understand privacy law. "Personal information" does not mean "a stash of kiddy porn" it doesn't even mean "Things I don't want the authorities to see." There are strict legal definitions of personal data and sensitive personal data.
" I wonder why the branding and menus aren't in Cyrillic?"
Possibly for the same reason that the Yakuza buy left hand drive Mercedes despite the Japanese driving on the left. It's making a statement.
I read that as "retch".
"Says more about the stupidity of the American people that they think they can be tricked by a Russian to vote for someone they don't like, than it does about Putin's intentions."
There's a failure to understand electoral manipulation on your part. The people were not tricked into voting for somebody they didn't like. The people were convinced that the alternative was to elect someone they came to hate. Their hate was fed by the ability of the Russians to obtain information from the computer systems of the party to be hated and feed that information to the party that the Russians wanted to see elected.
"Thumbs up for Bubblegum Rhinos / Stringpersons"
Thank you, kind sir.
"Clearly you are a youngster, otherwise you'd know this is the SOP of western capitalism."
You must be a bit of youngster yourself, James, because you say:
"1) Start a business. Do well, become successful"
That's not how capitalism works in the UK. It works like this.
1) Have a burning desire to get rich quick.
2) Realise that it takes too long to build a business.
3) Head to Westminster with some cash in pocket and take a few MPs out to lunch/dinner/Bubblegum Rhinos/Stringpersons/whatever.
4) With their support under your belt, lobby for "a moribund government agency" to be improved by transfer into the private sector, for peppercorn payment to "preserve vital jobs".
5) Sign a golden handshake deal to let the new private company operate for a decade without "unfair" competition.
6) Strip the assets, borrow billions, saddle the new company with debt.
7) Siphon the borrowed cash to your web of shell companies across the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Caribbean, Ireland, the Seychelles and the Netherlands. Put most of it into your own anonymous accounts.
8) Invest the company pension fund in one of your shell companies.
9) Transfer the pension fund to your web of shell companies.
10) Declare massive loss, sack the employees, close the business.
11) Retire to your secret Caribbean hideaway.
Now if only Capita could disappear without trace and their CL1 contracts with them. Getting some info on how that deal came into being the first place would also be welcome.
"Scaremongering over the Bluetooth API is simply opportunistic agenda pushing;"
I've come back to this because it's still annoying me. This wasn't scaremongering over the Bluetooth API as such, it's a discussion of the flaws that were introduced by a manufacturer's implementation of security. From the article:
"Basically, it is possible for a webpage to connect to CloudPets plushie, via Bluetooth in the computer or handheld viewing the page, without any authentication"
You see that part in bold? That's the important detail, no authentication required. This is a common failing in the Internet of Toys domain, the manufacturers do not provide even the most basic security measures. It's an implementation issue.
"Scaremongering over the Bluetooth API is simply opportunistic agenda pushing;"
<sigh> You may want to acquaint yourself with the facts before dismissing the valid security concerns over these things. The makers of the Cayla doll responded much as you have, complacently. Fortunately Germany takes these issues more seriously and the obnoxious doll has been removed from sale (in Europe at least). See this link for an overview of the isues:
Cayla was an insecure Bluetooth headset disguised as a doll. However hacking Cayla could lead to the doll being used to groom children, abuse them (as in cyber bullying), estrange the children from their parents and to steal information that could be used for other purposes. If you think having someone spy on you in your own home isn't a bad idea, consider if you ever read out your payment card details within hearing range of a device.
You also shouldn't be making casual assumptions about your child's right to privacy.
Here's a description of the issue with Cayla and other listening devices:
Here's a BBC item about the same:
"I have two of these cuddly-toy-becomes-eves-droppers and to be honest I really couldn't care less. "
Really, and when the "sad-o" tells your children that mummy and daddy don't love them anymore and that the only person to trust is Uncle Ernie who is sitting outside in his van with some nice sweets? He'll know exactly the right moment to get in touch because he'll have heard your child having a tantrum and screaming "I hate you!"
"at all those TLA's and FLA's."
I suspect you mean TLAs and ETLAs. Consider yourself admonished.
"or build some kind of EMP gun"
ITYM HERF gun HTH, HAND.
"Microsoft is asking you to move out of your house that's served you well for decades and into a special Microsoft house "
That's brings back memories of the decades old Gates vs Jobs cartoon. It's still on YouTube but I'm not linking to it because the video has been copied so many times that all of the copies are awful quality. You can find it by searching for Gates vs Jobs and see if you can find a decent version.
Anyway, it has a line in it where Steve Jobs materialises an iHouse from nowhere. Gates observes that it doesn't have any windows.
Also a joke about being able to run Windows inside OSX.
Gosh, these things keep coming around again and again.
I'm struggling to see the point of this. I can run whichever flavour of Linux that I like in VirtualBox. I tried using Hyper-V, all I can say is "just don't". That aside VirtualBox is responsive enough and connected enough to permit the use of Linux machines where one needs access to Linux tools, some bizarre MS kludge doesn't appeal at all.
"Or they could just call them on the fucking phone."
Wouldn't that qualify as paedophilia and incest?
"Far more entertainingly, think of the opportunity to add your own messages to the database to be played back to unsuspecting children and parents alike."
Someone has not just thought about it, they did it. The Cayla doll was hacked (easily) to make it a curse monster.
Note that one of the really bad things about this is that the developers of Cayla put some thought into censoring Zuckerberg style the conversations that Cayla could have with a child, forbidding any mention of gay marriage for example, but couldn't be bothered to secure their trash-talking conduit to prevent someone "grooming" the child.
I see you got a downvote, no idea why. Have an upvote to compensate.
"I haven't caused any kids, but if I had I'd never let anything like this anywhere near them."
What's irritating is how far back the warnings about Internet of Toys go back. And even more scary is that their are fools out there using "Adult Toys" that connect to the internet without any form of security.
 As others have pointed out the warnings go all the way back to the 1950s when science fiction authors thought about the implications of information technology and connectivity for toys.
"IR35 isn't fixed by creating some hideous online tool to manage its complexities. "
I have no idea why this on-line tool is so late. I could write it in a few minutes.
"Please upload all your financial information. We accept any file format." [Upload]
"Calculating, please wait.."
"Your contract is subject to IR35, please report to your local tax office to pay all the taxes outstanding."
"most have a very over rated opinion of themselves and are not worth the money."
But enough about permies...
Seriously though, I question most of your claims. Contractors can only exist if there's some value to a business in using them. Part of the attraction is flexibility. Some skills are only needed briefly for a particular phase of a project and it makes no sense to employ someone who will later have to be laid off. Some skills are so niche that very few people have them - try finding an Arcsight engineer, for example. Also it's easier to get rid of a contractor, most contracts specify a contract cancellation cause.
I've heard the rhetoric you spout before from permies, and the response is "If you think you are that good, and you are envious of the contractor day rate why don't you quit your job and get access to all the Free! Money!! that you imagine exists?"
I'll also point out that you may have the skills internally (I doubt it, most permies are hopelessly out of date) but what you won't have is the resource because the skilled people are employed to do a specific job and can't be released to do something else. If they are skilled and have lots of time on their hands then their employer should either be looking to fully utilise them or dismiss them as a drain on the company.
This is a bad sign. Every bit of bleeding-edge tech that I have purchased has seen the manufacturer crash and burn within a few months. I wonder if they will pay me to not buy one of these?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017