IDK. Maybe tools that show programmers why there cherished code idion is dumbass?
So they might change it.
Or at least know when they are being a dumbass?
16330 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"Stiffy, Stiffy, Stiffy the bush Kangaroo."
True story. The guy who played the kid in the series (a long time ago) said quite a lot of his scenes had to be shot carefully to avoid anyone noticing that Skippy was pretty rampant most of the time. Not something you really think about with most animals.
And so I bid farewell to another part of the innocence of my childhood. <sniff>
in a package small enough to fit on a drone that isn't the size of REL's Skylon
Good luck with that.
A note on mirrors.
Conventional polished surfaces can do broadband reflectivity in the 70-90% range.
Fabry Perot multilayer mirrors can achieve 99% reflectivity in a narrow bandwidth IE specific colour and can (in principal) be made in large sheets.
Narrow bandwidth light is what lasers generate.
Because it surely can't be this PoS.
I note that the Joint Speech Research Unit (part of the GPO IIRC but bound to have links to GCHQ) was doing voice over 2400bps in the 1950s
I would not underestimate their technical skills.
However what they are applied to is down to their PHB's.
It's the difference between British soldiers and the MoD.
One group is highly professional and focused, and the other group tells them what to do.
"You think the Russians care about a US or UK subpoena? Keep thinking only your countries Intel agencies will have access to any back door."
Indeed.
It's not the details of the backdoor that matter.
It is the fact that a government mandated exists at all.
And once enough back ground knowledge exist finding it won't be that hard.
"It seems like they all want slurp all communications without considering that 99.99..9% is absolutely not germain to terrorist or criminal activity "
Oh dear. : (
This has nothing to do with the story they tell their political "masters" to get funding.
Data fetishists collect data because they believe more is always better.
It's not a policy, it's a disease.
"Intel cannot get the profit margin it expects (of over 50%) in any area where it has real competition. Fabbing chips for other companies will be unlikely to produce returns over 10%. IOT chips are unlikely to give returns of over 20% due to the competition from ARM based chips."
Interesting.
On this basis Intel's problem is neither it's technology nor it's products.
It is Intel's sense of entitlement. There expectation they can charge that kind of markup in areas where there are substantial competitors already in place.
Intel's core skills are making chips. They make the best Intel processors on the planet. Logically they should leverage that and start making the best ARM chips on the planet.
But until they get over themselves that's not likely to happen.
What's clear is sometime in the next decade we'll be down to the 1 atom FET and at that point everyone's technology will be on a level playing field.
And I care because?
Intel owes it's supremacy on the desktop to MS and vice versa. While MS still has the death grip on the file formats PHB's insist have to be used (because they can't figure out how to override the defaults and open real open source standards) they'll be alright.
But if you're doing a clean sheet build of a new software system and you don't give a stuff about it being "Intel inside".....
""We wants it" is Gollum."
Correct. But nothing conveys the unlimited, unbounded desire for possession (in this case of all users data, all the time, forever) quite like Gollum's monologues.
Interesting you refer to him as Gollum, when the characters name is "Schmegle." Gollum being who he is turned into by his lust for the Ring.
Kind of like the list of sock puppets Home Secretaries who turn into instant fanbois for this once they enter office.
We wants it" would make her sound like a power mad dictator with a Stalin sized desire for control of everyone.
Which might make people disinclined to pass this Bill without drastic reductions in powers and gagging.
Nevertheless that's the bottom of data fetishism. The believe that more data is always better and all data (all the time, stored forever) is best.
Put that way does it not sound like a delusion caused by a mental illness?
Exactly.
I doubt their management give a stuff about what OS is being run, how many VM's it's hosting or what the development language or package is.
But I also bet they get very annoyed with systems fail, upgrades don't happen on time or upgrades have bugs, and they've hired managers who will to the necessary digging to find the root cause, get it fixed and ensure it stays fixed.
IOW DevOps is the process IT developed to get the result. If something else worked better they'd to that instead. It was not imposed on them by the Board as "The Next Big Thing."
I wonder how many dev teams in the UK can actually deliver tested software anywhere close to the numbers they gave for schedule & budget on a project?
My feeling is until you get to really big teams, whose resources make them effectively a large software house in their own right, very damm few. :-( .
And if you can't deliver the software on anything like the schedule and budget, but mostly the schedule. How can you say "I'm going to need another half dozen VM's to run regression testing by day X with this configuration and by day Y we'll take them down and need Z configured for production" when you have no clue what X, Y and Z are (in all honesty).
I suspect in 10 yrs time we'll find a small handful of companies (whose core business is not IT) have been doing this all along, but since they just got on with it and had no desire to tell anyone about it they never shouted it from the rooftop.
But maybe I'm wrong and this is the start of a glorious new world of gradually (and constantly) improving applications.
Zero.
The trouble is there comes a point at which workplace employee surveillance monitoring can become so ubiquitous (motion tracking sensors under the desk at the Torygraph anyone?) the only limitation becomes the employers resources and what they think is "reasonable."
Robert Maxwell recorded his Board members conversations and I'm not sure if that was actually illegal under UK law. So ceiling microphones doing real time speech recognition flagging key words?
Yes I think the best way to describe such a work place corporate culture would be diseased
1) Warman has done enough background reading to say something stupid and keep repeating it
2)Waman has a naive faith in the British security services and does not understand "filter"==query on f**king huge database of everything
3)Warman has been bought
4)All of the above.
There is no "none of the above" as I'm pretty sure those options cover any reason he'd say what he said and keep on saying it.
They are data fetishists. This is not a logical policy. It's a disease and one day it will be recognized and treated as such.
True but to give some credit to the shows creators it might just perhaps get some of the users of the millions of US owned Windows PC that have no AV installed to think "Perhaps I should get something installed."
And maybe the US botnet population goes down a bit.
No promises. Just maybe, a bit.
True.
Always.
And to the reply "The PHB made me do it." Make sure you have a record of supplying them with an analysis of what happens (especially how much money) will be lost if the project goes live with their planned arrangements and security is breached.
"In such a large outfit there must be staff open to bribery or blackmail. So what exactly have the Russians, Chinese, ISIS and the Mafia walked off with (or maybe inserted, deleted, changed)? If the incompetence is really so great, one need hardly bother with conspiracy theories to get seriously worried..."
Especially as someone hacked the whole USGov personnel system (including all those 163 page vetting forms for security roles where you tell them everything about yourself).
Correct.
It is.
Will you do anything about it?
Will you find out who bypassed both Houses and effectively treated Parliament with (complete) contempt.
I doubt it was the Home Secretary of the time who initiated this, as I doubt they even understand what they were being told (if indeed they were told anything) about it.
Let's keep in mind this didn't stop 7/7 or the killing of Lee Rigby despite both groups being on this system and it's supposed justification being the prevention of such incidents.
So how big an incident does it have to be before "the system" actually starts flagging a serious danger?
7/7 took 54 victims. What's the limit before the potential body count of an incident will be investigated? 60? 70? 100 potential victims?
Not going to quote old Trumper, are you?
IRL most crimes perpetrated on a racial group are committed by members of that racial group.
IOW most crimes committed on White people are committed by White people, the same for black, hispanic and other ethnic groups.
"Actual officer deaths due to firearms, for instance, are lower than ever -- after a post-Prohibition high point in the mid-1970s, the trend has been for fewer and fewer officers killed. 2015 looks set to be one of the safest years yet for police officers."
Goddamit you're won of those intellectual types who bring those facts to an argument.
Ought to be a law agin it.
Signed
A Hillbilly.
Irrelevant.
Pretty much all the data indicates a lot of trouble is caused at the "unit" level due to misunderstandings between different units and the amount of coupling between them (like Windows handle-to-windows passing a shedload of data between lots of functions, each of which can mess with any field (not just the ones they are designed to alter) to create interesting bugs to find.
So let's multiply the number of interfaces in the system and grow the testing time exponentially
Yay, I'm loving it already
Instead of designing a system with 1 external API you build dozens of little systems each with it's own API (which you're designing as part of the overall system).
I think someone should send him a copy of the collected works of Glenford Myers.
He seems to have re packaged "composite design"
" It would require that an Israeli company create it as closed source and ISPs place it on their servers or as a hardware sniffer box."
The outfit you're looking for was called "Dettica" but is now part of BAe systems and was called in (eventually) by StalkStalk when they discovered one of their data breaches.
So you can look forward to a closed code snoop box supplied by Call Me Dave's favorite (the CEO has unrestricted access to the PM, something even the CEO of LM does not enjoy with the President AFAIK) defense con-tractor.
"I think the chap you should be looking at is Charles Farr Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of the Joint Intelligence Organisation at the Cabinet Office"
He'll definitely be in this "coalition of the willing" (as Shrub liked to call such undertakings).
But he won't be alone.
It comes down to this.
Forget the "right" and "left" tags. That's BS where this is concerned.
There are simply those who believe in the democratic process and those who don't. These are the authoritarians.
So far the authoritarians seem to have built better cross party support for this. The appeal is of course "It won't affect you, you're in power."
The fools who listen to this never seem to realize a)They don't control the system. They have no real power over it and b)When they leave office, they have even less pull than they think they have.
These systems are like the results at the end of "War Games."
The only winning move (for privacy and freedom) is to not build them in the first place.
Except.
It's a government mandated distributed database with remote access (well it's distributed, how could not have remote access).
Abuse is guaranteed.
BTW that phrase "Communications Data Request Filter" just wreaks of some civil servant weasel told "We can't call it a database, we can't call it a database"
Where do think this is coming from?
Something like 8 UK sock puppets Home Secretaries have pushed for this since at least the time of Blair (which is probably about the time MI5 actually set up the system this law is designed to legitimize)
Most of those Home Secretaries would not know a database from a hole in the ground.
This comes from a collection of vermin unit within the Home Office and various current and former heads of GCHQ, MI5 & MI6
Take their security clearance and kill their consultancy business.
Useful to know.
I rather doubt we'd be hearing from him if this didn't happen first though.
As for lawyers...
No lawyer wants to learn about technology. It would hinder their ability to spout such utter bu***hit with a straight face.
The true answer is of course "I don't know. I'm far too important to worry about such thinks. That's for the oiks to deal with"
End to end encryption.
You'll miss it when it's gone, Mr Cameron. *
*Especially if (for example) someone were to snag a copy of your memoirs in transit and dump them to the public a day before publication,
Microsoft please take note.
It's like the end of a love affair between two psychopaths*
*The default "corporate personality" of publicly quoted companies.
Anything better is entirely down to the characters of senior management either a)being decent human beings (not merely thinking they are) or b)wanting their companies behavior to better than their private behavior.
IMHE both are as common as rocking horse droppings.