Re: Leave your password everywhere, or just tattoo it on your face
Simple, just require all iPhone users to have plastic surgery every 6 months to meet security guidelines
671 posts • joined 28 Nov 2007
Simple, just require all iPhone users to have plastic surgery every 6 months to meet security guidelines
Interesting...just goes to show how little we still know about our nearest celestial neighbour.
About time we had a mars rover type mission, or even better about time we got another person on the moon again. Its been far too long
Ahhh, that old pick line
Is that a 3D representation of my face which you are going to use to hack my phone in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me...
In the UK we are uniquely blessed in writing such regulations since our Prime Minister elect(hah!) May-bot is well known to be an advanced android who only narrowly recently failed the Turing test (failing when forced to show empathy to non-silicon based life forms)
If anyone can write AI regulations, she/it can...Obviously they may not be the best interest of the humans around , but then again this goes a long way to explain some of her/its recent behavior
"We could threaten to send Boris..."
Yes we could drop him over Buenos Aires.
We might even supply a parachute
Creationists deny all evolution, that's the point and comparing augmentation and automation with that debate is stretching the metaphore
Many of the things that allow augmentation facilitate the move to full automation, but that was not there motive for them being developed. Their purpose is to make driving safer.
Whether it is achievable or even desirable to remove the human from the loop is a different question.
We can look at other examples where more automation has been achieved. Trains have to various levels achieved full automation, but many trains still require a human driver. Most passenger aircraft pretty well fly themselves, but still we have pilots and I would argue not many passengers would get on one unless they new their was wetware at least in token charge.
To achieve full automation in cars you would need a high level of AI to allow decision making to cover unexpected situations.
This I think is the problem. If you make a car with the decision making ability close or above a human driver, it is no longer a car, it is in fact human competitor. As such I think we will find it hard to cross that last step because in doing so we will be accepting we are in fact obsolete, but most will accept a high level of augmentation as long as someone has a hand on the kill switch
* See Asimov I robot books for more reference
Not sure Anti Lock has a big effect on stopping distance, however it does ensure you can steer away from danger as well as brake.
Still, glad it worked
I wonder how many lives have been saved due to anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc. Things almost all card now have but we never think about
Better driver augmentation rather than driver automation makes sense
Reminds me of the old joke about the BAe 146 regional airliner
Why does the BAe 146 have 4 engines?
The wings were not big enough for 6
Also the cargo versions will be around for some time to come.
The 1920s onwards were times of great change in technology and its effects on the organisation of society. To some extent we are now seeing or anticipating the realisation of what sci-fi saw then as the apparently "impossible" future developments.
It is difficult to see what current young authors can add to the mix when so many possibilities have already been explored so thoroughly. Has the fantasy genre become the new area for creative writing?
Yep, nothing much has changed in the last 20 years (apart from the internet, mobile technology, robotics, genetics, etc). It must be a struggle to find something to write about
I think the big change in Science Fiction is that we have moved away from using science fiction as a mirror to what is happening now to purely fantasy. The greats, Aldiss, Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Dick et al wrote about the human condition and how change effects us. There are a still few who do the same Banks(RIP), Bear, Reynolds spring to mind, but they do seem to be fewer and fewer
This could be rather than too little change, the pace of change is to great, meaning that any science fiction set 10 years ahead will probably be overtaken by the time it is out.
Wouldn't it be an irony is the coming of a technology singularity was the cause of the death of the very science fiction that predicted it...
1. The Unite The Right people were protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, which has been in place for over 100 years.
Right, anytime in the past 100 years any person of any colour could just roll up and protest about the statue and what it represented. Unite the right were not protesting they were acting as agent provocateurs so that they could could represent themselves as the victim
2. They had obtained all the permits required for their protest.
Did the permit request say they were going to bring Nazi flags and armed militia?
3. The violence was initiated by Antifa and BLM counter-protesters - who had no permits to protest and came tooled-up for the violence.
There is no way you can say that. This follows the usual far right play book. Turn up to an area in the maximum provocative manner, encourage counter protest and then act like the aggrieved party. It is direct from the kristallnacht where any resistance to these assholes is used as an excuse for more extreme violence.
Note only one side had a armed militia and only one side had deaths and serious injuries. What makes it worse is the leader of the 'free' world playing along with the playbook.
Interestingly, the police made very little effort to keep protest groups separate - almost as though the leftie govenor of the state wanted it that way, so he could decry all the 'right-wing violence'. Unfortunately, that politcally motivated ploy allowed the violence to get so out of hand that people died.
Another direct excerpt from the far right play book. Police stand back, its a left conspiracy . Police go in, it is a conspiracy to deny us our freedom of speech. The police were in a no win situation as soon as they turned up. Fox news will make sure of that
Trump decried the violence on both sides at the outset as there was plenty of blame to go round. However, that wasn't what our mainstream media, who have their own left wing agenda, were interested in. Hence the pressure to only blame one side. Have you even seen mention of Antifa or BLM? The coverage I have seen would lead you to think the only people there were Nazis.
People turned up with swastikas, for christ sake and paraded around shouting seig heil and you seem surprised the other people were upset?
The violence was purely orchestrated by provocation from one side. They had every right to protest the removal of a statue, but the manner chosen was specifically to ensure maximum provocation. The fact was they wanted violence because it played into their world view as a down trodden minority. Trump showed what side he was on. Just imagine what his reaction would of been if it had been a Muslim driving a car into alt-right protester rally. Would he be saying, oh well there was violence on both side? Of course bloody not
I have no sympathy for the Nazis there,
then stop making excuses for them
but I am wary of the complete airbrushing of both Antifa and BLM - both of whom are quite happy to use violence and property distruction to get their way. Left wing extremists should be held equally accountable for their violence.
Let me repeat. One side drove a car through a bunch of other people killing a paralegal who was peacefully protesting a group of right wing thugs dressed in Swastikas and you feel responsibility is equally held? I guess you would be one of those in 1930's saying "I don't agree with Hitler, but those Jews had it coming"
If you are interested at all in truth, I suggest you watch raw footage on YouTube. There is plenty of it. You may well come to different conclusions than those the media want you to draw.
and how do you know what is raw and which is doctored? How do you put the footage in context without knowing who took it? Funny thing about truth, is that everyone thinks its absolute, but is in fact relative
At a USENIX Windows NT conference , Microsoft was presenting their future directions for NT. One of their speakers said that they would release a UNIX integration package for NT that would contain the Korn Shell.
A delegate stood up and said that this was not the "real" Korn Shell and was not compatible
The presenter insisted that he was wrong and that Microsoft had indeed chosen a "real" Korn Shell. After a couple of exchanges, the delegate walked out.
Another delegate then stood up and said "you do know you've just been arguing with David Korn don't you?"
Not exactly IT, but I did have a friend who worked for a carpet retailer.
They had customer complaint of stains on their brand new carpet and wanted compensation.
So he went out there to look at the light brown stains on the carpet. As he was inspecting it the customers dog worked in, laid a 6 inch dog sausage in the middle of the rug and trotted out.
He just shrugged at the customer and walked out....
Yep, just read it again, my bad
Of course there are another of other assumptions in there such as method of the formation of black holes, do stars in binary configurations affect formation, etc. So I guess this the upper figure, not necessarily the definitive value
Presumably as we get more LIGO data we can test that figure and hopefully get some new science
As far as I understand it we have had 2 detectable events since LIGO went live.
It seems like an awful small amount of data to make such a statement. i presume if LIGO does not detect another for 20 years, the maximum number of black holes in the galaxy will be reduced?
"I genuinely think long gone are the times when an idea was shot down with a well constructed counter argument as opposed to just being silenced by any means necessary. I get the impression that (for some people at least) censorship is more agreeable if the consequences for ideological deviation are of a non-violent nature. Whilst I disagree (mostly) with what he said, sacking him simply enforces a lot of his points about the bigotry that exists within Google"
If this is censorship why are we still talking about it. Censorship is typing falun dong in a search engine and getting a visit from the secret police.
The young man had every right to express his opinions, he just didn't have the right to expect to work for a company whose opinions go directly against the expressed cutltural aims and brand of the company after doing so.
He is still allowed to express his opinions, he just has to find a different pedestal to do so
"Mr. Damore has conclusively proven that he cannot work well with others.
Has he? "
Well yes, as soon as he disparaged 20% of the workforce as biologically inferior he became a liability. He became less effective in doing his job and incapable of being put in a position of responsibility where he may have direct influence over the career of others. Not only that but any decision based on the work of others will now have to be put in the filter of his expressed views. Did he turn down a colleague suggestion on its worth or due to their gender.
Google is a corporation, and the bottom line is it about whether an employee can justify the cost of employing them(which I assume in this case is a lot). This employee reduced his worth to the company to the point where it was more cost effective to replace him. The employees big mistake was over estimating that his value.
Probably the best article i have read on El Reg for sometime.
I am male, a software engineer and i approve this message
I said that where the differences empower your organisation you should seek to employ them. In this example, it could be seen that those prejudices were inhibiting them, and they should actively seek to address that.
You would expect an organisation to look at its culture or mindset to assess whether it is helping or hindering. It would be foolish of a business to ignore damage being done to their brand or earnings by wilfully allowing a damaging culture (See: Uber).
In a perfect world yes (however in a perfect world there would not be discrimination based on race or gender)
However you over estimate corporations and those who lead them.
If you are a elderly middle manager you do not maintain control by employing people of greater or equal ability., you do it by employing yes men and lesser intellects. Many corporations die, because eventually you get a manager of little ability who employs people not on their ability, but on their subservience, loyalty and the ability to make themselves look more competent than they are. Diversity is discouraged because it highlights their inadequacies and there is always the danger that they may be competent .
Eventually the company dies, gets taken over and in some extreme cases the incompetent CEO gets elected as POTUS
Never underestimate the ability of a company to resist change while pay lip service to the changes they themselves will not make.
Seriously does no one read Parkinson's Law anymore
The best person for the job, is the best person for the job. Don't remove the differences, embrace them.
Problem is how and who defines who the best person is for the job.
For example you could use the old British civil service system which was based on which public school they went to and their ability to speak Latin. Their argument would be that anyone who came from outside that culture would not fit into the environment and therefore be less effective. The fact this was total bullshit and used to ensure power rested with the ruling classes didn't stop the system being used well into the 21st century.
In the end prejudice can often be disguised in this way and after a while can become a reinforcing feedback loop that is difficult to break out of.
Lovely idea, totally inoperable in practice
Firstly anyone who knows about government standards will realize that 5 years is just enough time for the various departments to decide the color of the binders for the requirements spec. When the spec does come out it will be costly, over specified and totally irrelevant to the modern world.
Secondly it is not the OS, but what runs on top of it that is the costly bit. Developments target windows because that is where the market has gone. We think governments spend a lot of money on IT, but this is dwarfed by the commercial sector.
and it is not always easy to port between OS.
Take SCADA. i am sure there will be some SCADA systems running on the QE, and they will be run on some variant of windows. Why? Because the primary protocol for SCADA is OPC and that requires DCOM as its communication back end, which is propriety to windows
Finally, you assume that UNIX variants are immune to cyber attack, where in fact any OS can be targeted with enough money and resources. It is just the that windows popularity makes it the more obvious target.
What is needed is a move to open standards and this is where government can nudge companies. If we have have open standards, porting between OS becomes easier and market can choose based on their needs and priorities. This is happening slowly because firms are wary of vendor lock in
I don't see a business case in the UK, where the Daily Fail and the Diana Express have being doing that role for years
Oh, lordy, please don't let the management see this, otherwise they will ordering us to wear blindfolds when near a router
"Convention doesn't trump the law."
No, but the question is whether copyright law is appropriate when dealing with API's, which although are technically "published", their purpose is far more extensive than just a paper representation.
Copyright law concepts was written way back,and just was not designed for this. To be honest this is just another example where the way information is used, distributed and disseminated shows that current copyright law is not fit for purpose.
The only people cheering for this judgement to come down on Oracles side, is the author, Oracle and IP lawyers. That's not a group that any sane person would want to be associated with
Sun had no problem with this, until they were taken over by Oracle
This is just another long line in money grabs from Oracle. After their initial failure to argue that the code had been copied, they have tried to expand the argument that API's were copyright-able, despite virtually the entire software industry being based on the fact API's were open.
It is an interesting case, but this article is so one sided it would make you wonder why it has taken 7 years ti get to this point. Pity that the analysis has been done by the registers answer to Sean Hannity
Obviously graphs and scales are not your strong point.
Let XKCD simplify it for you...
We know that's you Donald, your handle gave you away
I initially misread the article as
"Here I was, with the cream of top British digital talent around the CORBA table"
and I thought, well there's your problem....
You might not of noticed that EASA covers a lot more than drones. It covers all Europe air regulations. So if we leave, it will affect more than just the ability to fly a drone ins Europe
and yes, we can write our own regulations, but at what cost? Writing and certifying a set of regulations for 500 million people is far more cost effective than maintaining your own separate standards.
And the Problem is with aircraft is that they habit of flying abroad, and the most likely destination for UK aircraft is Europe. So you can have one set for UK and one for the EU, but in the end you are just duplicating effort, cost and regulation, so why do it?
The stupidity comes from the belief that world revolves around us, where we are about to find out that our importance on the world stage has been severely over stated.
and where do you propose to find the people to write the UK regs @codejunky and who is going to pay to employ them and regulate them? Maybe Nigel F can do it, since obviously he told us it will be easy and has lots of time on his hands
And while we are waiting for these new regs to be certified by Europe and US as compatible, what do you propose the people who rely on the certification do in the meantime?
Some of us unfortunately have to live in the real world and not pretend taht everything will be OK, because a few deluded politicians told us so...
To be truly hacker proof, they will have to upgrade to the SHA-2 Done
Our company disables all outgoing ftp requests for security reasons (something IT forgot to mention for about 6 months). so my heart sinks when I go to a company website and see only a ftp link for uploading patches/software etc.
To be honest, most fraud occurs due to card skimming and the cards being used in areas where two factor authentication is not standardized (That technological tour-de-force, the US is the biggest culprit ).
If you wanted to fix security you close the weakpoints 1st, so they would be better off just disabling all non chip and pin cards worldwide
The difference is that most transactions use Chip and pin in the Europe, which means loss and mis-use of the card is far harder. In the US it basically comes down to your word against the retailer with the only proof being a illegible scribble, therefore banks has fewer ways to verify true loss against fraud.
Saying that if it was a choice between better security(a.k.a chip and pin) and trying to recover lost money from a bank, I would go security every dat
Ah, the man who judges success and value through an excel spreadsheet. I'm glad the human race does not use your metrics when deciding to have children, otherwise the human race ill be dead soon.
The equation is not as simple as we put so much in, put we only got so much back, but more the value in what the shortfall paid for.
In terms of R&D there was not even a shortfall, the UK was very good at getting the EU to pay for research projects.
So the government have said in the short term they will stump up the difference, but how do you value the value of sitting on the top table when the projects are decided, how do you value influence in large basic research projects. How do you value the loss of worldwide influence of universities, business and government in cutting edge research and the subsequent loss of top foreign researchers and academics?
Answer: You can't , but you would be a fool to assume that the value is not considerable to UK PLC
FYI Just ask Chicago how well tough immigration controls played with the IOC
The chances of L.A. getting the Olympics in 2024 under the present regime is approaching zero, and Paris on only an hour away
and a backbone...
Its getting like April the 1st should be the one day of Sanity, because it feels like the other 364 have turned into the joke
"British drone firm wins EU maritime safety contract "
It was a real pity that the author decided to conflate their prejudices with an otherwise interesting technology story about the use of drones to replace expensive manned services.
There is nothing here about Brexit. The firm already supplies drones for maritime pollution emission testing and therefore they were front runners to extend the contract. Of course it only runs for 2 years to give the contracting agency a get out clause at the end (If you wanted a Brexit angle you could of mentioned that the UK will have to fund a presently shared service, presumably at extra cost after Brexit)
As for the mention of the european army, well it might of escaped the authors attention that the drones are unarmed and the EMSa is a purely civilian agency tasked with Maritime safety. As for the cheap "troubled political project" jibe, well, if i wanted that sort of biased reporting I would go and read Breibart
The whole problem of measuring security through password entropy is that you are putting the emphasis on the security on the weakest link and the area you have least control. The only reason that this seems to happen is that it reduces the provider liability.
As has already been stated, far better than longer and longer passwords is to introduce 2FA and login delays on incorrect logins. But this takes effort on the providers part, so we blame the users for choosing relatively easy to remember passwords.
The argument that if users choose short passwords means that passwords files are easy to decrypt again misses the point. It is not the users fault if a password file is stolen, nor is it there fault is the password is not stored in a salted method which should be at laest as good protection against dictionary attack as other password methods
The nature of a Nation State is that it has Citizens, and Visitors. A civilised state treats its Visitors well. But fundamentally, citizens of other EU countries are as much Visitors as UK citizens in the EU are.
Even visitors have rights, such as equal access to the legal process and due process of law.
EU citizens are also a special case. They are not visitors but given have equivalent rights as UK citizens to settle and work as defined through treaty and agreement that the UK signed up to.
To arbitrarily and unilaterally remove those rights is akin to ethnic cleansing, because if rights can be retroactively removed what is to stop a government redefining the meaning of citizenship at any stage based on colour, ethnicity or religion?
EU citizens have settled here legally and have every right to expect that right to be protected even when the UK leaves the EU. The idea that their rights should be a bargaining chip as some sort of hostage shield show how low morally the UK government has fallen.
So you know what the rules will be post-brext do you. Well, do us a favour and tell the rest of us, because the UK government don't seem to have a clue, but obviously you have inside knowledge.
That is the big difference between remainers and leavers. Remainers acknowledge the risks of leaving, while Brexiters promise rainbows and unicorns. You, I, the government have no idea of what the trading rules and regime will be post-brexit, but for certain they will be different.
No doubt there will be winners and losers, but to suggest that things will be just the same in our trading relationship ijust shows how delusional the argument has become
How hard can it be - nearly everything in your house is made in china / taiwan.
Well, we could start with labour costs. Knock those down to China levels and they will offset the increases. Lets kill environmental controls as well, I mean whats a little mercury and smog between friends. Lets kill any employment laws so that people can work 80 hour weeks with no pension/overtime etc.
Hey look we can now sell everything as cheap as china as well...
EU rules on non-discrimination and mutual recognition, as well as supra-national EU regulations, allow most UK producers of goods and services to sell directly to EU customers without having to navigate through additional domestic government regulations. The rules are broad and have a strong enforcement mechanism. Generally speaking, if UK companies comply with domestic regulations, they may sell in the rest of the EU (as noted, with a few exceptions).
That's the whole point of the single market, a level playing field across all members with the same rules. Now you may tell me about increased sovereignty, controls on immigration or whatever other fantasy you are reading in the daily express at present, but to suggest there will not be a fundamental cost in our trading relationship with our biggest market after Brexit is just la la land.
I guess he has no interest in selling into the EU market, where I assume he will still have to follow EU laws and regulations which the UK will have no influence.
Not only that but on Brexit every product produced in the UK, will now have to have the paperwork and administration costs of any external company.
But hey, its only 500 million potential customers, I am sure our new trade deal with New Zealand will take up the slack.....
Good point. That's why I keep my old atom laptop around.
Pity it does not have a dedicated Ethernet port however
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017