Posts by hammarbtyp 1385 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Nov 2007
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
@Dave15
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
https://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/chicagos-loss-is-passport-control-to-blame/
As the washington post explains, this is less likely to be security related and more likely to be a trade war masquerading as a security matter.
Welcome to the new world
"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.....
I think the point is being missed a bit
If you treat your workforce like a proles in dictatorship, you will only incentivize the workforce to break the system such as make a hated boss look bad, leave the company or just to see it fail.
Basically sysadmins are being used to try and overcome the shortcomings of management, but unless you happen to have the powers of a North Korean dictator there is no way to stop all leaks. Even if you lock down every service, who watches the watchmen?
The whitehouse is not leaking due to lack of security, but the desire to circumvent it driven by a administration who want to act like a 3rd world dictator. Good luck with that
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds
Tariffs are not the issue here. The UK at present has relatively few tariffs.
The issue is regulation. At present any product made in the UK is capable of being exported to a 500 million person market on our doorstep with no extra checks delays or costs.
By leaving the union, we lose that capability. We could mirror the regulations but without agreement we will still be liable to checks as we cross the trading zone border. This will make the UK a less attractive place to build things.
I doubt if we will find another trading deal with that level of access
I will take a guess that this is due to the amount of Energy stored within the system.
Due to the power and voltage levels involved it is not as simple as just flipping the off switch. Somehow the stored energy needs to be safely discharged and this could take sometime.
We are talking about more than 240V and a few electrical capacitors here...
I have lived long enough to know you should always be careful who you make your heroes.
There are good arguments to be made that Snowden should be pardoned due to the fact he highlighted illegal activity in the NSA.
Assange however is not in that category. Apart from the fact is is trying to escape unrelated charges, he has shown himself over the the last years as a narcissistic, thin skinned individual with a penchant for the dramatic. No wonder the president elect seems to like him so much.
During the election campaign he deliberately tried(and may of succeeded ) in trying to sway the election to the republications by using the wikileak material in the most damaging way, and by constantly adding hints and innuendo about the material. Whether the material came from Russia or not is a moot point (although he would deny it, wouldn't he) , his agenda could not of suited the Republican party any better in its timing and content. Whatever you feel about Clinton, he consciously tried to subvert a democratic process.
Rather than a purveyor of truth he has shown that he is a man willing to push his own agenda and the world be damned.
There are many people who have done brave and selfless things to make the world a better place Julian is not one of them. Look somewhere else for your heroes.
“This deal highlights the continued global success of UK-based technology companies. Since the EU referendum, we have seen a resilience in UK and European mid-market M&A in the technology sector, despite the ongoing market volatility. We continue to see the UK as a hub for technology, and demand for UK companies is set to continue into 2017.”
To paraphrase, since the referendum the 3 has dropped through the floor against most major currencies meaning foreign firms can cherry pick the best UK companies for a pittance compared to a few months ago...taking control indeed.
"So whats the point"
1. It ensures that Europe has strategic control over a critical infrastructure
2. the satellite placement is optimised for European latitudes
3. It extends the accuracy to the present GPS and Glosnass network
4. It allows the use of additional services such as automatic rescue position detection
5. It allows European firms to build expertise and technologies in important technology areas
6. It allows European firms to compete in a lucrative positioning market
7. It creates high tech jobs in Europe
Apart from that...Can't think of any good reasons.
As far as I can remember Nikon D5 is about the only DSLR which does not have a SD option. Yes some cameras allow other options, but since they are dual slot it means that you can support both.
SD cards are still the majority choice for 99% of photography, even more so if you do landscape, so the lack of a dedicated SD slot is a bit of a bind
I think we are a long way from truly automated vessels, but certainly more semi-automation is possible where a ship can be run for a long time with the minimum of human oversight.
What we are more likely to see in the short term is convoy automation where you get one master ship manned with engineers, command staff etc and a number of fully automated vessels taking the lead from that ship.
I know Rolls Royce are doing a lot of concept work. However I think the biggest issue will be inherent conservatism of the marine industry, some who still think that the move from Wind to steam was a bit hasty
Buy British. Simple.
Oh yes really simple.
Let's buy a British car
You mean like a Nissan?
OK not perfect but at least it is made here
But a large % of the parts, as in all cars, are made overseas and imported in, which the low £ will reflect eventually
OK bad choice..Buy British fruit then
What like Oranges?
OK, maybe not Oranges, However there is always Terry's Chocolate Orange
You mean the ones that are made in Poland?
@Dave 15 Haven't you ever wondered if it was that simple why all countries don't just devalue their currency?
Pound down can be good if you are a company who exports, but for the people who live in the country (assuming they do not own exporting companies) it is not so good.
Basically the £ in your pocket is worth roughly 10% less than it was a few months ago. So yes we export more, but our pay can buy less. Is that what you really want?
From what I can tell there may be debate, but the laws will be able to be repealed through the use of statutory instruments, which is basically a government minister signing it off without the need for a commons vote.
So we will have taken back control only to give it all up to a government minister.
So potentially goodbye working time directive, Environmental controls et al without even a vote in parliament
"to have the freedom to make our own decisions on a whole host of different matters, from how we label our food to the way in which we choose to control immigration,"
I think the government may quickly find that in a global economy there is far less freedom than they would like to think. The main difference will be the loss of any influence on many of those rules
Amateurs tend to subscribe because they think that's what the professionals use. However the majority rarely use PS for much more than cropping or a bit of cloning.There are far more cost effective tools to do that.
Most of the processing photographers do, can be done in RAW processing This can be done in lightroom, DxO, Capture one etc and do not need a subscription. If you feel you need to add or remove items (which is a big no-no if you want to enter landscape competitions), PS elements will do most of what you need.
PS is used as a photo manipulation package, but is in fact a supremely capable graphic design tool. Unless you are creating images from scratch, you will hardly touch the surface of what it can do and be wasting your money.
So get a RAW processing package, a cheap photo manipulation tool such as elements, zone, paint shop pro and after 18 months you can start putting that money you've saved towards better lenses, which will actually make a difference to your photo quality
People always tell me that the subscription price is great value. However to me it feels like those higher purchase deals where the monthly cost looks so affordable, until you add up the lifetime costs. Also once you stop paying, you lose access, so it is difficult to ever leave.
Of course the other argument is that you get lifetime updates.
There is some benefit in this, but no one ever seems to question whether the updates have any value. The truth is when PS went subscription it was a mature product. There has be nothing revolutionary in photo-processing since CS6. There has been a few tweaks, and UI improvements, but nothing that stands out. Also do not underestimate that a lot of the power of PS comes not from the product itself, but the 3rd part add-ons such as Topaz and NIK. Take those away and it would be like nn iphone without an app store.
And that is the big problem with the subscription model. It makes the supplier lazy. There is the old Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert is rotating his hands and says to Wally, "we are getting paid for this". If Adobe never did another update, they would still rake in the cash from their existing subscription base. It makes companies lazy and inhibits innovation. The only way Adobe have got away with it for now is because of their gorilla position in the market. If someting comes along with 90% of the features, but at a non-subscription price, they may find they have lost the ability to react
Still waiting for the windows port of Affinity Photo, but it could certainly give pohtoshop a run for its money
The truth is a lot of photographers think have to use photoshop, but only use 10% of the features. They could use other packages just as well.
Unfortunately if you pick any photo magazine up they only ever do tutorials for photoshop meaning it is hard understand what you are doing initially.
In the corporate world photoshop is so ingrained into workflows that it is hard to see it ever being replaced.
It is however an added expense and cost.
Again a startup is not likely to want to enter all markets at the start due to the cost of regulation. They are more likely to want to grow in their home market, then expand to other trading areas when they can support the extra regulation cost.
That has not changed.
The key difference is that for UK based start-ups the home market has shrunk from 500 million to 60 million. That is not devastating, but it will have an effect.
We are not asking for a definitive statement, just an indication of what direction the government favors.
That does not require Article 50, but I think the problem is that the three stooges who campaigned to leave, and are now responsible for negotiation are suddenly faced with the reality rather than their fantasy world they espoused during the campaign.
In the mean time industry and investment will suffer due to uncertainty
Well 1. There does not seem to be any sign of negotiation. Just a lot of floundering. Any agreement that would allow free access to the single market, seem to come with the requirement of free movement of people so is a red line among many in the government. If we go the WTO route, we will have accept that there will be a increase in regulation cost to sell to one of the worlds largest markets.
2. What is good for Samsung/Google/Apple etc is not necessarily good to a small startup trying to enter the market. The former can absorb the costs because they already sell to a large market. A European startup can apply one rule and sell to 500 million people. A UK startup can either try and grow in a smaller UK only market or add costs trying to expand into the larger custom union and meeting both UK and EU regulation(assuming they diverge and UK certification is not automatically accepted in the EU). This puts any UK only start-up at an initial greater disadvantage than say one in Germany
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
