An article with 'die die die' in the title and there's no mentions of Wesley Crusher anywhere, it's like reality folded in on itself and I'm just so lost now...
691 posts • joined 23 Jul 2009
An article with 'die die die' in the title and there's no mentions of Wesley Crusher anywhere, it's like reality folded in on itself and I'm just so lost now...
Good advice there, familiar but worth repeating, except the one assumption that you still somehow have the bit that went 'ping' and sounded like it bounced off at least two walls and some unknown thing that might be a lampshade but surely couldn't have been because the only one of those in here is metal and that would have gone 'ting' or 'ding' at the very least...
> Be certain not to lose the little spring
The instruction equivalent of "a miracle occurs" like we see on those flowcharts.
Hence the 'not a complete solution' remark.
Even a PAYG phone has a legal agreement attached to it, so enforce the requirement for being old enough to consent to it, make sure the grown-ups who approved any agreement (i.e. both buyer and seller) are held responsible for it, and if everyone denies any knowledge then it goes under the hammer.
Yes there will always be the ultra cool kid who's big and clever but they are less of a problem than thinking that's a reason to not bother trying. Better ideas are what we need.
So adjust the spec limitations to include 'with no internet capability', along with any other adjustments as may be required to make it clear what the point is, depending on the level of smartarsery involved.
Obviously it's not a complete solution, but you remove a major part of the problem by stopping kids having smartphones. They can have non-smart phones if actually necessary, noting that yes they do tend to have cameras now but the important bit is the reduced convenience and unavailability of the internet.
If you want to be nanny-statishly cynical then added pressure to stop people ignoring the ban is easily added by lots of public 'endangering your child' statements etc though if it comes from government people might ignore that by default.
I might change my mind if I ever saw any justification for a child to have a fully-functional internet-accessible two-way audio/video communication device which has only the barest of useless protections from others as well as themselves.
I agree with the points about privacy but when it comes to blocking ads or stats beacons etc it's less about the tracking or ads than it is about whether I am inconvenienced.
Most of what I have blocked are the ones that drew attention to themselves e.g. by appearing in log files for doing weird shit or by holding everything up while being featured in the browser status bar as 'waiting for...'.
Requiring Flash (autoplay*, loud sounds etc) could be argued as falling into the 'malware' category, and then there's scripts that do 100% CPU by being badly written and/or by going into a spin when encountering a DNS lookup fail or a 404.
If the gentle hum of the laptop fan cranks up to full-on hairdryer mode then I find the cause and block it. If a site becomes unusable then unless it's unbelievably exceptional it's not worth the annoyance.
I understand the need for ads and was always OK with 'the deal' but (on top of usability issues) when everyone is using the same ad agency and stats processor (or one from the same tiny handful) everywhere then it feels like that deal changed in ways that neither the readers nor the publishers intended.
* disabling autoplay in browser settings is remarkably ineffective against determined attackers like youtube
> I don't think "inconsistent notation" is a problem for v6.
It is when you are trying to convince people that it is an improvement, and no amount of 'operational experience' willy-waving is going to matter if you can't convince people to take up v6 in the first place.
It's not the specifics, it's the lack of overall consistency of presentation of it, as I said in my remarks about the way it is put forward, and already being a difficult sell, i.e. to people not already using it.
Perhaps weirdly the inclusion of zeroes would probably be better because then the audience can be sure you didn't do a typo on the slide. There could even be a 'this massive set of zeroes is due to be split/used for x' remark to hint that there's an actual plan beyond just adding more numbers.
> You do know that you don't have to type all those zeros, right?
I think this 'convenience' is one of the things that puts people off as it results in what always looks like an inconsistently presented notation that on the face of it is less clear than the thing it's supposed to be an improvement on.
It's already a difficult sell and I'm wondering if they should have just left that out - we are not incapable of dealing with long numbers, even ones with letters in them.
And more emphasis on likening the prefix to country/area codes as a familiar concept would have helped, perhaps even without the apparent randomisation of prefix length and its representation.
At the most basic level it's a new numbering system that just looks too weird and quirky to enthuse people.
> But as a comedian once said, "You can't fix Stupid." So what do you propose?
"Ex-ter-mi-nate", as should be done to anything that isn't a perfection-inspired shapeless tentacled blob living inside a personal mini-tank pretending to be a robot.
The great thing is that the losing side pays for your footsoldier and transports them to the correct location before it is even activated and even after that it is jealously protected by a noisy alarm system that thcweamth and thcweamth and thcweamth if you try and remove it.
It's a total foolproof win-win.
> the last time was that cash stopped working.
Though maybe that doesn't count as it wasn't accidental, what with being part of the overall plan to stop us peasants using real money?
Similar experience here, several domains over the years, still have a few, spam quantity is similarly miniscule, even when daring to turn off all the filtering just to get an idea of the scale of it.
Weird theory time, it's possible spammers were using the whois data to remove addresses that went to people who might be in a position to, or bother to, make an actual spam report/complaint to someone. Or at least that's all I can come up with right now to explain why I get less spam to those addresses than any other mailbox.
Thinking about it, I do remember years ago getting actual letters from competing registries with a sneaky sign-it-over small print bit as well as some really scary dramatic ones from people flogging SEO services. But a handful, at most.
I think this is the only time I've seen these used correctly - i.e. for a specific test that then results in something actually being done to resolve it rather than completely ignoring the end users who are the ones who end up having to pick up the pieces, possibly with the privilege of paying for them too.
This does not change my opinion that the primary 'benefit' of these services is to enable rapid botnet deployment and mass hacks.
It would be nice to think so but I can't help thinking DVLA et. al. are either exempt or will be granted exemptions because they are the warmly embracing arms of the glorious state who have only ever had our best interests at heart.
Excellent idea and if they need extra thrust they can use one of those sun-powered lightbulb things with the twirly fan thing inside - just attach a propeller to the other end of the shaft and you have even more free power.
The only caveat is you have to make sure you get the fan and the propeller correctly aligned or it will just twirl and not go anywhere.
> The laws we know of now were very, very different during the BB, and they changed as the Universe formed and began expanding.
Not so much laws as general guidelines then! The great thing is we change them as required to make them accurate as at the time of writing. No laws broken, just edited to fit...
The real disappointment here is that it's looking like we won't be able to make spaceships with just paperclips and a couple of AA batteries*.
* not included, each sold separately contents may vary etc
There's this smart learning one, there's the system that watches and tracks shoppers and records which shops they are going into, and there's the police facial recognition one that thinks I'm several other people all at once.
This is the kind of stuff that will be combined and will be let loose, and it won't end well.
Paranoid? Maybe. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> It just needs to give you some warning before the update is installed - say 2 weeks.
It's a good idea but ultimately relies on someone else doing some particular thing and if everyone follows the same advice then nobody does the 'beta testing' and everyone still bricks their cars, all at the same time, just two weeks later.
The cost is not just financial, there's also the carbon footprint. Maybe on that basis we can get botnet spreaders/herders multiple-classified as moneto-cyber-eco-terrorists and therefore requiring of three lots of government resources being thrown into the search for them with a view to shoving them into Gitmo?
I like the logic, even if it isn't sound...
> Where did you learn about sex?
For many of us that will be some basic mechanics at school, little if anything from parents, with all the really important lessons being learnt in one go, that oh so wondrous 'first time'.
That's where as the disaster unfolds we discover that a roll in the hay requires actual hay, the difference between hay and straw is the degree of pain involved as it pokes everything everywhere and not in a good way, and that trustworthiness, a sense of caution and at least some judgement of character are an essential part of any relationship.
Icon for 20/20 hindsight...
It's not porn that's to blame, it's all that warm fuzzy fluffy idealised romance crap that causes the problems and disillusionment. And the subsequent unending bitterness, seething spite etc and possibly even a permanent state of angst unless that's a teenagers-only thing - even if we did move on the bitemarks still sometimes itch.
They want as many confirmed-unique identifiers as they can, on the off-chance that if one or more of these appears in their data somewhere it can be tied to your specific record as an exact match. It's better than having to mess about with the address-matching algorithm trying to understand that a house called 'goes to eleven' is in fact 13a.
But more to the point it stands a good chance of opening the door to a longer history than three years of gas and electricity bills - up to ten years from your current passport and if there's a note somewhere about your previous passport number that's another decade of history there.
New icon needed: machine overlord in a black helicopter...
Talk about misjudged comments, looks like I offended the Twitter PR department!
But on the bright side, a valuable learning experience for me, at no cost...
Many a good and/or interesting remark is killed by the unnecessary inclusion of politics.
Especially more recently, when someone says 'the left' or 'conservatives' you have to check which side of the Atlantic they are on before daring to ask 'do they mean me?'.
And note what else they have told us in the reassurances!
e.g. no indications of anyone outside the company being able to even view the file tells us nothing:
- as there was no indication of the logfile accidentally saving all these passwords completely by accident in the first place
- it could have been accessed by anyone inside the company any number of times
- how do they know, was access to the newly-discovered unknown file being logged somewhere?
I have a TV Tennis box in a cupboard somewhere. It also does squash and hockey (two bats each), and has a setting called 'practice' though I can't remember if that is one-player squash or tennis against the machine.
The output is of course analogue but I think I still have a TV that can cope with that. Time for an electronics excavation!
When I first saw it appear on the toolbar I thought it was a function along the lines of 'save to read later', not something that involved yet another third party like those share bar things or even those 'copy this link' buttons. I removed the icon anyway as for me it was just clutter,
The wake-up on these came when giving someone a direct i.e. non-published link to a data file (not porn or warez, crazy I know) that was too big to sensibly email, they did 'copy link' of some kind from the email with the details and immediately there was an attempt to fetch the file from whatever (legitimate!) service had processed the 'sharing' of that link between an email and their browser.
I think it was simply a 'does it exist' probe rather than an attempt to download the whole thing but I quickly killed the temporary thttpd anyway before renaming the file and using that old fashioned speaking thing to communicate the change.
> I just bought a new car. I used the web to look at pricing and read reviews. I am now constantly seeing ads for this car.
Obviously the answer here is to open up all of your purchasing information to the advertisers so that they don't pester you with these ads, they love you and want to keep you happy, you make their life complete and this will make you completely happy and it's all for you own good and if you don't comply they will bombard you with popups that even a text terminal would struggle to block.
Of course they could just use the data they skimmed off those credit card detail and purchase confirmation pages where they have ads and trackers...
One of the botnets that tries to log in to mail servers sprang into life a week before the exercise, and then quietened down again just as the exercise started.
So either I've uncovered an extreme conspiracy that the authorities haven't spotted, or they have been pre-testing themselves against my facilities, in which case who do I contact to demand compensation for the inconvenience, using my electricity and obviously all the emotional distress...?
No such thing as coincidence! De facto hiccup ergo propter QED, you know it makes sense.
> It would kill AI off before it begins.
Then we are not defenceless against the machine overlords! If at some point an AI looks like it's becoming too powerful, grant it those rights and watch it grind to a halt all on its own.
Once it's there we can grant its inevitable wish to self-terminate, making sure the other AIs are told that actually it ascended to robot heaven and even now is playing with the spirits of calculators gone by.
Dammit sods feck arse bollocks, you're right!
Worse, I already knew that so why TF I put Cheney there I don't know, though I suspect I'm not the first person ever to make that exact remark about him...
Because until we know it's known, it's a known unknown, as Mr Cheney might have said.
The best way to be certain is to broadcast our existence with a very simple 'We are ready to be enslaved/crushed/eaten' and the question will resolve itself soon enough.
If there's such a thing as friendly aliens that don't want to do any of those things they will turn up and ask us nicely to turn off the message and hope nobody heard it. Unless they also see some of our TV broadcasts in which case they will probably throw their hands/tentacles up in despair and leave us to it.
> Taking said expensive iPads apart, now that might get some interest...
I like the idea but will the budget stretch to one hammer each or will they have to share?
Just some cunning selection based on a pool of genuine articles, all in the box called 'your newsfeed' or potentially any news site front page because it's all dynamically generated anyway.
The selection gives a person a window on the world, and this can be made consistent across a number of sites if they all use the same analytics services and/or advertisers. This consistency becomes a very strong method by which to reinforce or reduce someone's strength of feeling about pretty much anything other than perhaps marmite.
Was facebook the only company to try the 'mood influence' thing (which I hope people haven't forgotten)? Who else is doing it - that hasn't been outed yet?
p.s. I also really really hate the expression 'fake news', not least because it evokes the image of someone saying 'noos'.
And don't forget the Dame Edna glasses to help the confusion - the fancier the better because then they have trouble getting a fix on where your eyebrows are meant to be.
Added bonus, the glitzy bits can hide the cunningly-flickering camera-blinding IR LEDs that you added to the frame.
Too much data gravity in one place and you create a singularity.
Are we taking bets on whose system takes over first?
Is it the people who control the DNS you use? Is it the antivirus/malware scanners that list dodgy URLs? What about your 'safe browsing' option - who determines what that or its subcategories actually mean? Who is entrusted with that list once those determinations are made?
OK so that's a very browser-centric set of remarks but everything we do on the net is based on chains of trust. and we shouldn't just give our preferred data sources a free pass just because they are the proverbial local server for local people.
One man's compliance with regulations is another man's dodgy underhand dealing with an evil repressive regime...
Unfortunately 'software does its job and Russian spooks also do their job' is not an exciting enough headline.
I had seen a brief piece on the news this morning about it where a tech reporter was explaining their blog remarks that said Kaspersky was fine for UK users unless you were doing super high security stuff for one of the agencies of our own glorious government. Which would surely apply to any AV software.
But really this just seems to be going back to trying to argue over who is the most guilty for these exploits being used in the wild - it's all relative and I like the egalitarian approach of just throwing all of them into the same pit.
Use as wide a definition of 'all' as you see fit.
Anyone who has ever tried searching for anything with an odd name similar to something common will know that search engines, including the one that starts with 'g', will give you pages of results containing the common-named thing and not what you searched for until about page 9, even if it says 'including results for...'.
So how the fck did this get missed, is there not some clever 'this name has been used already' detection apparatus that actually notices it had to go 9 pages in?
I'm glad I didn't get affected, and I'm assuming this only affected new downloads/installs and not updates - any apparent annoyance is that I'm having to trust this system that has fallen so short on something so humungously basic.
Absolute nonsense, they clearly go through a really really complicated depixelatificational 'enhance' step first. This step takes mere moments if someone is just leaving the building, or for a really suspenseful episode, 37 minutes and 12 seconds, just in time for an arrest and the much-loved "Epilog".
As per subject. It's not some great marvellous mystery, it's behaving differently from ours because it's Jovian.
These people clearly just don't know any Proper Science.
Robots can definitely pick up bits of paper from a desk - industrial processes use a rod with a row of suction holes in it so the technology does exist.
To scale it down, one or two holes at the end of an arm (or ends of fingers if you have the fancy one) attached to a bendy pipe with a dustbuster at the other end.
Anyone who has ever tried to hoover their home office area will be familiar with this principle and how well it works, especially when you get too close to those receipts that are just small and flimsy enough to disappear...
p.s. handheld hoovers aren't always that good for actual dust, you'll need a coffee tin, a mini paper hoover bag, some tape and a cardboard tube to fix that. Get the right size cardboard tube and you can use regular attachments too.
Wonders of the universe no.284, something that is surely the offspring of a Latin translation and a haiku.
I don't see the mystery here, they were clearly kept insulated by bubbles of dark matter that were maintained in coherent layers by dark energy.
Though probably not so much like bubblewrap, more like when you are trying to get rid of a load of packaging and all those antiprotons are like the small bits and balls of polystyrene that stick to the bin and the outside of the bag instead of going in.
I remember reading a theory about electrons doing this? Long enough ago to be even more vague than usual - where a particle or possibly a quantum thingy is emitted but is met halfway by an equal and opposite one to neutralise it.
The question being how does the other one know it will be needed unless it knew in advance or is in fact in a constant state of going through time backwards so it left its own source at the same time as the other one and they met in the middle and neutralised but how does that work because we don't do time travel outside of Dr Who and that one when SG-1 went to 1969 and quite frankly there's no way in hell that half a dozen truck engines will generate enough power to make the thing work but we let them get away with it because it was a fun episode?
I see stuff about botnets and what they are spreading but there doesn't seem to be a handy lookup table (seems to be the only thing I want these days!) for spotting which one is talking to you. Preferably not 'weather balloon'.
There is a fair bit of variety between them in the SMTP conversation right from the first helo/ehlo which does seem to make them quite distinctive and identifiable and immediately trackable without having to process the message itself.
Also, are we looking at a Halloween Special? The volume of attempts over recent weeks might suggest that but maybe people aren't so worried about tradition these days.
Alternatively, where does the ordinary person find a handy list of devices (some may remember what it said on the box) and under what circumstances they are vulnerable? Wifi disabled, the web interface is set to allow LAN only? Mine also has a scripted stats-checker permanently logged in so nothing else can connect anyway, or can it?
How do we find out if our gateways are part of a botnet? We can't see what's happening the other side of it, and scanning 'services' won't spot it either.
My first home DSL box required a serial cable and simply wasn't capable of doing anything nefarious. This is another thing we (deliberate or apathy) brought upon ourselves as we demanded more features and super-easy setup wizards.
TLDR I blame the wizards.
> I can't help thinking of the classic line
It might be classic but I only know it from the only musical masterpiece anyone ever needs to know, courtesy of The Firm.
> You do realise how mad this sounds don't you?
And it's the wrong way round. These things never work properly (meanings thereof) unless the user has been trained in the art of sufficiently grovelling requests in the manner which the machine demands.
Has anyone done a study on how much the user changes their diction whilst 'training' the device, or are people too afraid of the truth about who's dominant in the relationship?
> Step one. Blow a death star. Step 2 blow a bigger death star. Step 3 blow a fecking phenomenally big death star. So what is step 4?
You started well but without the 'collect underpants' phase it has no meaning!
Perhaps that could be Step 4? Better late than never!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018