Stunningly beautiful on many levels.
That is all.
4544 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
That is all.
There's an account of a Viking funeral (one of the few first-hand written accounts by an educated writer) by a 10th Century Arab traveller who gave the following account:
The dead chieftain was put in a temporary grave, which was covered for ten days until they had sewn new clothes for him. One of his thrall women volunteered to join him in the afterlife and she was guarded day and night, being given a great amount of intoxicating drinks while she sang happily. When the time had arrived for cremation, they pulled his longship ashore and put it on a platform of wood, and they made a bed for the dead chieftain on the ship. Thereafter, an old woman referred to as the "Angel of Death" put cushions on the bed. She was responsible for the ritual.
Then they disinterred the chieftain and gave him new clothes. In his grave, he received intoxicating drinks, fruits, and a stringed instrument. The chieftain was put into his bed with all his weapons and grave offerings around him. Then they had two horses run themselves sweaty, cut them to pieces, and threw the meat into the ship. Finally, they sacrificed a hen and a cock.
Meanwhile, the thrall girl went from one tent to the other and had sexual intercourse with the men. Every man told her: "Tell your master that I did this because of my love to him". In the afternoon, they moved the thrall girl to something that looked like a door frame, where she was lifted on the palms of the men three times. Every time, the girl told of what she saw. The first time, she saw her father and mother, the second time, she saw all her relatives, and the third time she saw her master in the afterworld. There, it was green and beautiful and together with him, she saw men and young boys. She saw that her master beckoned for her.
By using intoxicating drinks, they thought to put the thrall girl in an ecstatic trance that made her psychic and through the symbolic action with the door frame, she would then see into the realm of the dead. The same ritual also appears in the Icelandic short story "Völsa þáttr," where two pagan Norwegian men lift the lady of the household over a door frame to help her look into the otherworld.
Thereafter, the thrall girl was taken away to the ship. She removed her bracelets and gave them to the old woman. Thereafter she removed her finger rings and gave them to the old woman's daughters, who had guarded her. Then they took her aboard the ship, but they did not allow her to enter the tent where the dead chieftain lay. The girl received several vessels of intoxicating drinks and she sang and bade her friends farewell.
Then the girl was pulled into the tent and the men started to beat on the shields so her screams could not be heard. Six men entered the tent to rape the girl, after which they forced her onto her master's bed. Two men grabbed her hands, and two men her wrists. The angel of death put a rope around her neck and while two men pulled the rope, the old woman stabbed the girl between her ribs with a knife. Thereafter, the relatives of the dead chieftain arrived with a burning torch and set the ship aflame. It is said that the fire facilitates the voyage to the realm of the dead.
Afterwards, a round barrow was built over the ashes, and in the centre of the mound they erected a staff of birch wood, where they carved the names of the dead chieftain and his king. Then they departed in their ships
The account is published in a book by Steinsland & Meulengracht published in 1998 if anyone is interested. As you can see, China has little to worry about in comparison.
It also makes it harder for the authorities to prosecute him than if a friend or relative had to arrange it themself.
Well, the authorities could prosecute if they wish, but he wont care.
>>"Security is the justification for taking away control from you like in UEFI Secure Boot."
Well on any x86 device so far, that's only meant taking away control from people who can't work out how to get into the UEFI BIOS and switch Secure Boot to "Off".
Which admittedly, may include you.
>>"Sounds more like a DRM mechanism than helping protect the OS from compromise."
Ideally, it would be both. If software can be verified at the hardware level then you can say goodbye to intrusive DRM that can hit performance or has to keep signing you into an online account, etc. Win-Win, imo.
>>"The trouble with this type of approach to security is that knowing (or thinking you know) what something "is" doesn't really tell you very much about what it "does" - or might do when it thinks you aren't looking."
That's not the way it helps. The point is that if it isn't what it's supposed to be, you're unlikely to be the first victim. It will rapidly be reported and its signature revoked.
>>"Expect that to be implemented as enabled by default on home/consumer rated OEM installs and disabled by default only on volume licence distributions."
IF your unsupported assumption turns out to be true, then the user could, you know, turn it off again. And if a user can't manage that then they're exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be turning it off anyway.
>>"Maybe you feel that they should be different, separate, services, but that is irrelevant. Both are Google products, and Google is entitled to use one to promote the other"
No they're not, that's where you are mistaken. The reason is because it is anti-competitive. Sticking with the Ford car analogy, suppose Ford not only made cars, but also owned a chain of petrol stations. Suppose they cross promote deals between the two with their petrol stations giving discounts or priority lanes to Ford cars. That means the car business is no longer competing on the quality of cars, but is affected by the number of petrol stations Ford owns. And if Ford is dominant in the field of petrol stations such that the overwhelming majority are owned by them, then that is anti-competitive. The car industry will be hugely skewed not by competition within it, but by the market dominance of the owning company in a different market sector. That is abuse of position which is illegal. Google are hugely dominant in search. Therefore using that to promote themselves in other markets can be anti-trust.
Also, this article is the usual biased polemic I expect from Worstall these days.
>>If the pirates obtained TWO copies, they could run a picture delta analysis to determine off frames and work from there: keeping edits from BOTH copies to throw off the forensic identification"
This has been covered in detail. The above is possible. But what it achieves is to tell the distributors that TWO studios have leaked. And which ones they were. Basically, you think using n sources hides which one of n was the leak. It doesn't, it provides a list of thise n studios that have been compromised.
>>"About stopping leaks and piracy release the damn thing when its done rather than waiting. If the English language version was ready why sit on it?"
Well it only leaked ahead of the official release by about a day so they were hardly "sitting on it". And if you're suggesting releasing all episodes at once, that's far worse from the point of view of advertising revenues so the producers would make far less money. It's also arguably worse from the public experience as for many the What Will Happen Next community factor of people getting excited waiting for the next episode, discussing it, is a big part of the experience. Millions of people discuss Game of Thrones (and enjoy doing so) in a way that simply would not happen if it were released as a big blob like a movie with breaks.
>>"Also regional delays are unecessary. If the latest episode of X is already out in Y then Johnny Pirate will download it. With on demand TV im sure most people would forgo piracy and just watch it on demand. Unfortunately the choice isnt there."
Getting rid of regional segregation and just having a single sales model for shows would certainly be a cost saving for we in the affluent West. Basic economics is you charge what the market will bare. And that figure is different in India to what it is in the USA or the UK for example. So if there's no regional segregation the price will average. That means cheaper for we in the West, but much more expensive for people in India, Pakistan or wherever.
>>"And should I re-encode to a different frame rate, all is lost."
No, because your new encode will still have length variations in scenes that relate to the source copies. You can average scene lengths but that brings us back to having successfully narrowed down a short-list of those recipients that were leaks. Think of your re-encode as adding 2 to every number in a sequence - it does nothing to conceal the original pattern. To do that, you need to know which numbers in the sequence are different to other sequences and change those parts in a way that is special. And you can only do that with ones that have leaked so once again - the distributor knows which parties contributed.
>>"My point is that once someone knows how you encode something, they can mess it up."
That may be the point you are trying to make but what you keep doing is posting what you think is an easy way around this which turns out not to be. Everything you say is exactly what someone who is intelligent but lacks experience in the subject matter comes out with. The problem is that each time you do this, you assume you are right without having tested it against things in practice or against counter-points.
>>"But, as usual, most of the Reg commentators refuse to acknowledge the most basic principles of security, such as threat models and relative costs, in favor of making banal, sophomoric claims about why someone else's idea is stupid."
But if someone else is stupid, it means you must be the pointer out must be smart... right?
>>"How? If your method of identification is dropped frames and I drop more frames then you can only see the total dropped frames, not the number of frames I dropped thus"
Because I have the master list of which frames I have dropped for each recipient and can add back in any you have dropped which aren't on the list. Unless you magically coincide with the same frames by happy accident (and you have to win that lottery multiple times to really obscure the signature) then I can tell the difference between which frames you have dropped and which ones I have dropped.
Now obviously if you had access to all or many different leaked copies you could do comparisons and work out which frames I had dropped from each of them and then remove all such frames from a single copy thus anonymising it, or put ones back in making it look like it's from another. But you can only do this between sources you have copies from which returns us to the situation where you have to have compromised many recipients rather than a small number or one.
Basically, if you have only compromised one recipient, what you suggest cannot work. If you have compromised two recipients then what you suggest can obscure whether your copy originated from either of those but it doesn't help you because my inability to distinguish which one out of two gives me the same information - I know that these two recipients leaked. Your technique basically only works to obscure videos between leaked parties by which point I already have the information I want.
>>"As a pirate I could defeat this in seconds flat. Just drop a random number of frames from the start and end of each scene"
And I can see which frames have been dropped and add them back in. Your solution doesn't work unless the hidden information is always in start and end of each scene.
>>"How about spending a lot less trouble and creating equasions that result in widely and fairly distributed content rather than noosing anyone who doesn't comply with your barbaric demands?"
I had a go at such an equation and came up with this:
Cost of Production + Profit = Fee per copy * Number of Pirates.
But I still can't come up with a value for Number of Pirates that makes it balance. Maybe if I set a negative value for Profit...?
It's not a matter of whether there are a group of pirates from different regions willing and able to co-operate. That's one requirement (and not a small one given these pirates compete with each other to be the first to release stuff, btw), but it's not the only requirement. It's also a matter of having to compromise multiple sources and about the distributor knowing which ones are compromised.
Right now the studio knows only that at least one of its recipients were compromised. With this, they can say: "studio X and Y in Poland were compromised, also studio Z in the UK". They can then proceed on that basis - this is valuable information. And if it were just one recipient that were compromised they would not merely have a shortlist of suspects, they would KNOW which one it leaked from. Also, it is harder to compromise many recipients than one.
You seemed determined to argue against this on a basis of lack of perfection. In fact, this is a very good and useful solution and the possible ways you point out to defeat this are partial and also more and more difficult the more recipients you hope to compromise.
>>There's also the issue that the screener copies can get stolen without the screener's knowledge,
Just because a solution isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good. Whether it is stolen from a particular recipient or they handed it over knowingly, it still narrows down your investigation a huge amount.
>>"Plus, as noted, some pirates are determined to cover their tracks and are willing to cooperate with others to cover each other's butts by collaborating on their copies to defeat watermarks"
Doesn't matter. It changes the requirement from needing one compromised source to several in order to pull off this "co-operation". You are supposing many sources to be compromised and conspiring. If there are few or only one, you have again narrowed your investigation enormously.
I see one downvote already. I think it may not be clear that your references to Jews are intended to draw parallels with how Jewish people were used as scapegoats and could be read as you saying hoarders is a euphemism for Jews. Just because that's how strikethrough text is so often used online. I actually had to double check and think about what you probably meant.
Just to make you aware.
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
My bet is that someone put it there to share with someone else (either due to technical hurdles on the correct way of sharing things, or bureaucratic hurdles that were inconvenient). That other person grabbed it off the webserver and then it was forgotten that it was up there.
It's at least plausible.
IT Person A: "Hey, I need to run some stats on your mortgage figures for the boss. Can you send them over?"
It Person B: "We're not allowed to send that stuff as email attachments anymore and we're not in the same group for the file shares."
IT Person A: "Can you put it on that webserver and just tell me the name of the file?"
IT Person B: "Can do."
Then Friday afternoon happens and the rest is history.
All quotes on the Internet ultimately evolve to the point where they are attributed to either Wilde, Einstein or Bill Gates. Or if to do with American politics, Benjamin Franklin.
>>"The direction Microsoft are currently heading is for them to have most core applications running on their servers, your data stored on their OneDrive. And instead of people paying for an full blown OS on their own devices, for Microsoft to control everything."
Yet another thing the bastards have stolen from Google! >:(
My off-the-cuff opinion (which is probably worth as much as the final commissioned report but a few-hundred thousand quid cheaper, I expect) is that it should either be Android (but based on CyanogenMod) or Windows Phone. Apple is out of the running both for lack of customizability and lack of experience and support for the Enterprise. WP has been designed with Enterprise support in mind and Android can be made so because it's open.
Ruggedability should be something of a non-factor in the decision as it would be relatively easy to re-case both Android and Windows devices and with a lucrative market like policing / security forces, there would be no shortage of OEMs happy to do so.
>>"Is it 'cos dey is Black(berry)?"
Given we're talking about the Met, here... probably.
An extensive investigation by an expensive third party that has little to no representation from the people currently involved and familiar with what is being done. This will culminate in a report that recommends whatever vendor the decision maker is friends with the CEO of.
"The unethical, in pursuit of the unusable."
Alcohol is to stupidity like oil is to an engine. It reduces resistance and lets you just accelerate away.
Agreed. I don't want more features. It does what I want very nicely already. And I like it because it is simple, efficient and clean to use. WP8 follows, in a way, the UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". At least as far as interface and apps go. Now it looks like it's throwing that out in favour of the usual headless chicken approach.
Will reserve judgement, but not optimistic.
>>"So what ? I was working on Vax VMS 27 years ago, you're not the only old fart around here."
I was asked where I had been for the last twenty years so I answered. It's not me trying to argue I'm right because I've been working with these systems for eighteen years, it's me answering a direct question from you. So don't pretend it's anything else.
>>Have you ever considered that patching and clearing up after cock-ups is actually what keeps a lot of admins in a job ?
I'm not in favour of writing bad code in order to ensure job security. That's a broken window fallacy.
>>"By the way 99.9% of comedy is laughing at someone else's misfortune."
I think when it's applied continually to a favourite victim, it's called something else.
>>"You wonder why 'nixers are hostile to MS and laugh at their misfortune, where have you been for the last 20 years ?"
Well actually, around 20 years ago I was working on HP UNIX give or take a couple of years (1998). I've worked on UNIX and then GNU/Linux for well over a decade and didn't use Windows in any serious manner until around the time of Windows 7. And you know what? I still don't laugh at other people's misfortune. I judge things on what they are today, not the actions of fifteen years ago. I could actually dig out some old Slashdot posts if I chose where I was endlessly damning MS for various things (SCO, their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish with Internet Explorer), etc. But when the situation changed, I didn't cling to old opinions, I kept them up to date. MS today produce some very good products and I recognize that. Furthermore, I don't cheer when something bad happens or people have to pull an all-nighter because of a problem. What I have learned is that any complex piece of software has problems. Today it is an MS product, tomorrow it will be Apple or an Open Source project.
So don't tell me what I don't know or that I have to indulge in pointing and laughing because of old history. We move on. At least some of us do.
The seething ill-will on these forums is really pathetic some days and this section is a great example of it. Almost nothing but venom and bile and for what? MS found a problem and fixed it and hackers reverse engineered that fix and are now targetting those who haven't patched. What do all these critics believe MS should have done instead? Not patched it and hope no-one else ever found the vulnerability? Patch it secretly and invent some sort of encrypted update system where no-one can see what MS are doing to your servers? Not technically feasible and unacceptable regardless. Seriously - if people are going to pour all this scorn on MS for this, what exactly do they suggest would have been the correct course of action?
No wait, I've already guessed the response - it's going to be some variation on "they shouldn't have bugs in the first place". Good luck with that! :/
They seem to have leapt past the "we can make science fiction real" stage and gone right to "we can make science fiction sound passé" stage. Passing information between single electrons in a way that can scale to usable solutions?
Is this real or madness. Or both?
Watch out for loopholes with that. I wouldn't put it past Google to try something like the following:
"They aren't sharing the email addresses. They are simply using our advertising API with your email address to generate ads you will be more interested in. This is initiated at their side and your data remains with the sole-party you have voluntarily shared it with".
Or similar technical dressing up the sharing of data as not actually be shared.
>>"So I just installed Skype for business today. It's really just Lync with a new skin."
Thank goodness for that - sanity prevails (unusually).
Do they sell an upgraded version without the new skin?
>>"Now it's just untrustworthy shite."
Skype sold out to the NSA all by themself, before MS got a hold of them. Check your information. Those joining PRISM the chronological order was something like Skype, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo. I can't remember where the others were but Skype was always crap and always untrustworthy. I used to argue with everyone I met about it that they should be using some open SIP client but few people listened. And now look where we are. :(
Incorrect. Firstly, privileged parties do get to review the source code of MS products for security reasons such as this. Secondly, whilst you might not notice, there are plenty of parties that would notice Lync reaching out of your network to send your information back to MS HQ. Kapersky Labs would be on that faster than you can say "lawsuit". It's neither in MS's best interests nor their capabilities to pull this. Would you really want to chance the reputation of your flagship product (Office) on the idea that no-one would ever monitor their network traffic, no security specialist would ever test it and none of the numerous people who would have to be in the know in your company would ever blow the whistle? Short answer: you're a raving paranoid who hasn't thought this through.
What is not paranoid however (but slightly more on topic) is the idea that a really good product (Lync) will be screwed over by a forced merge with a pretty awful product (Skype) for the sake of Marketing trying to monetize the Skype user base.
>>"Or has it simply not appeared in an obvious guise?"
Well I don't exactly frequent the boundaries of culture so I would not necessarily be aware of it if they are erring on the side of caution with borderline cases. But so far as I'm aware, no - it has simply not appeared.
>>"It was Nirvana's Nevermind on Wikipedia that got blocked"
No it wasn't. It was an album by a band called the The Scorpions which had a young girl with her crotch covered by fake damage to the CD cover. I wont link to it but you can look it up.
The rest sounds accurate as I remember it, just the wrong band and album.
I remember when the IWF were first set up and they hit the tech news due to that incident where they blocked an album cover. I haven't searched for my old posts but I recall being pretty critical of an unelected and uncontrolled (as I saw it) body making judgement calls on content and having the power to mandate the blocking of things on their say so.
A few years later and the tyrannical moral censor that I anticipated has failed to appear and instead they have done a lot of good work in dealing with child porn. Icon is for me and my getting caught up in mob-frenzy of paranoia and outrage.
>>"Isn't that a bit like putting the responsibility of a scam on the victims rather than the scammers trying to con them?"
Yes and no. MPs who lie are obviously still culpable of doing wrong and this isn't absolving them of this. But the better analogy is like an interviewer that keeps hiring the wrong people because they never check references and never do any proper assessment of the candidate. They just keep giving the job to the person with the best suit.
Basically, our selection criteria is flawed. You can blame the people we select, but there will always be dishonest candidates and if we preferentially select them over the honest ones, WE have responsibility for that.
>>"Tell that to the MPs forced to quit after the expenses scandal. It sure changed things for them."
It changed things for them but it did not change the system. There will always be people who set short-term benefit (which can be years) ahead of the threat of eventual possible reprimand. And so long as we consistently elect the person with the grandest promises, we are selecting for such people.
>>"They do however have the choice of deciding what to promise, with most of them opting to promise the moon when they know it's not possible."
That's because the one's making promises get elected. Take a population of 20 candidates. 19 tell the truth, 1 promises everyone a pony. The one lying gets elected. It's immaterial whether you chastise MPs for lying or not because the system is set up to reward the liar. The only way to change that system is to get the voters to not reward lying - complaining about the MPs wont change anything. And to change the voter behaviour, you need more educated people.
>>"Calls on Vodafone frequently fail even if the phone claims to have reception"
I get that with Vodafone. My phone will show medium or even high reception but the call keeps dropping. It's only something I have noticed since moving to Vodafone. I have been trying to work out if it is the network or something wrong with my phone. If my phone is showing good signal, what causes the call to repeatedly drop and txt messages to fail?
>>"And what about rights for Pyladies?"
I prefer Yoga.
>>"I don't think anyone who's a member of the "Pylon Appreciation Society" has the right to call anyone or anything else boring..."
You're commenting on a news story about pylon colours. Just saying...
I think it's not my place to say what colours or patterns they should have. It should be thrown open to local communities. Schedule days when they can be turned off and provide some scaffolding and paint, and let people turn up and decorate them. What's the worst that could happen?
>>"The idea that Kelly was murdered is frankly pretty absurd"
You have no idea what you are talking about. Many very respectable people consider it a very serious possibility and we had a very major inquiry into it (the Hutton report) and several members of parliament called for that campaign. You have, I'm going to repeat this, no idea what you're talking about. For example your following two comments:
>>"Here's a guy with very loose connections to the Iraq thing"
Assuming if by "the Iraq thing" you mean the invasion of Iraq, he did not have "very loose connections". He was one of the chief weapons inspectors for the UN, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in uncovering Saddam's biological weapons programs the first time around. He was one of the world's foremost experts on Iraq's weapons capabilities and treated as such being an advisor to both JIT and British Intelligence services on the subject. He was also one of the proof-readers of the dossier which was the legal basis for UK involvement in Iraq. Only a special kind of ignorance could say he "had very loose connections to the Iraq thing" and I'm saddened to find that I'm conversing with an idiot. Your second statement is similarly imbecilic:
>>with no real voice (literally)
He was the primary source of information on this to the one of the UK's biggest newspapers and undermined the entire legal basis for war. The information he provided (which is subsequently shown to be true, btw) was read or listened to by most of the nation. And you call that "no real voice (literally)". He was an official advisor to the UN and the UK government! No voice? He was a major voice in what you call "the Iraq thing".
You've just typed his name into a search engine, haven't you? You have no conception of the context for any of this. For example you write:
>> If the assumption is the government goes around arbitrarily killing people who simply criticise it
Clearly you have no idea what was actually at stake here. This wasn't someone "criticizing" the government. In order for British Prime Minister to take Britain to war, there had to be a legal basis to do so. Do you get that? We would not have gone to war without a legal basis to do so and the British Prime Minister would have been convicted of war crimes for doing so. Got that? The legal basis for war came down to Britain arguing that Iraq had WMDs. And here was one of their own chief weapons inspectors who had led big parts of the investigations formerly, saying there was not a case for this.
For you to present this as the UK government killing people for "criticizing it" shows a complete ignorance of what you're talking about. Without a case that Iraq had WMD, there was no legal basis for war and the UK would not have been able to go to war. That was what was at stake and Kelly threatened that. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq and many British soldiers amongst them. It's not as if the architects of that war didn't think there would be such casualties. If people are knowingly able to cause that much death for whatever reason, do you really think one more body in the foundations would stop them? It defies all logic to suppose people would commit to a course of action that condemned huge numbers of people to death yet allow one more life to stand in their way. Are you arguing that British Intelligence lacks the capability to arrange a suicide? Of course not. Are you arguing they don't have motive? Of course they do as demonstrated. Are you saying the architects of the Iraq war would shy away from killing someone? By definition, they haven't. So what is it in all this that you are calling "frankly pretty absurd"?
And all this ignorance on your part in order to try and construct some case against Russia! One can point out flaws in Russia without having to pretend one's own government never gets blood on its hand.
>>"They could, or they could go the licensing route, but both of those options mean the Microsoft name can't be on the product, which means it will be a much harder sell"
"HP Cloud - A Microsoft Azure Partner".
The branding side of this is actually the easiest part. It's the business organization and contractual sides that would be a (surmountable) nuisance. I actually think the biggest concern for Microsoft and other American businesses, is the PR hit from if they end up handing over customer data to the US government - that's something they're extremely keen to avoid.
>>"They can't even frame people for assassinating Putin's political adversaries right."
Well we left Dr. David Kelly with a barely-plausible suicide in the woods and then ordered there not to be a proper inquest - it's not like Britain is either unwilling to kill inconvenient people when the stakes are high enough, or necessarily perfect at hiding it when they do.
(No black helicopter icon - the Kelly case is far from some tangled and improbable conspiracy, it's depressingly likely that he was killed on the orders of someone in our own government.)
>>"You don't actually know any farmers, do you?"
Nope. Now tell me how that invalidates a statement that drones will continue to improve in capability.
>>"Post proof or retract."
Inductive reasoning. People have been able to fly toy planes and toy helicopters for decades. Drones are no harder than these. Actually, the better ones are noticeably easier. Why would there be some special exception for drones. Flying a drone is easier than all sorts of things people do routinely. Ergo, most people can fly or rapidly learn to fly a drone. Ergo, this is not a barrier to drones being successfully used.
>>"The older dawgs do the work as the pups learn the drill. Lather, rinse, repeat."
Well there you go - I was saying it took at least a year investment to train up a dog. Now you're telling me it's actually a multi-generational investment. So that's even more of an advantage just being able to buy a drone has.
>>"Which is how it works. Growing mutton on a large scale isn't something that happens on a whim."
I have no idea what you think that has to do with anything I wrote other than it leads me to think what you're somehow hearing is someone saying farming is trivial and getting angry.
>>"Nope. Unless you think that purchasing a drone (or eight) and a thousand or so sheep will automatically make you a successful sheep rancher. In which case, you are completely deluded."
See previous point - you somehow are hearing things I've never said at all. I've just said that I think it very probable that drones can replace sheepdogs and automate some of the herding work in a way that a sheepdog cannot.
>>"You obviously don't understand farming. The critters work best (and are tastier!) on a set schedule."
You obviously don't understand what you're reading. I just made the argument that drones will be able to adapt to complex schedules without human intervention whereas you are trying to counter-argue that by saying animals work best to a set schedule. I know - that's what I just wrote: animals get used to a set schedule. Drones will be able to work to any schedule you program without it making any difference.
>>"Of course it is. But dicking around with the critters internal clocks will make them taste like ass."
I don't believe for a second that shifting schedules around a bit makes sheep meat taste discernibly different and just because your drone will be able to vary its schedule doesn't mean you have to be moving sheep around every half hour. It's a capability that is useful from time to time which sheepdogs don't have because sheepdogs can't read an online calendar.
What I'm hearing from this and your previous posts, is someone who either loves sheepdogs or considers sheepfarming a specialist career, getting angry with someone who points out that technology is making some aspect of it easier. And not actually reading what they say very well, either.
>>"you're assuming the Chinks can ID them as faulty.........not necessarily an accurate assumption."
If the chips give faulty results, I can tell that they are faulty. If I can't tell that they're giving faulty results, then they're not. Reason being, it is straight-forward to design tests to determine if they're faulty or not.
Go ahead and give it a try: post a way that the chip could be deliberately faulty and I'll tell you how it could easily be detected.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018