Can't believe you didn't offer it...
3032 posts • joined 19 May 2010
Can't believe you didn't offer it...
One must be living under a totalitarian regime
Welcome to Britain
The way to prevent the inappropriate use of the data is to stop using it inappropriately; not to stop the data being collected in the first place.
Well no, not necessarily, the gathering of the data might be inappropriate too.
In today's society, it seems to be the default assumption that you should collect as much data as you can about everything and everybody.
Sometimes, it would be good if organisations stopped and thought about whether they actually should be doing that, or if they really need to do that.
At first, there were a group of fantasists who believed it was an alien starship. Those claims were quickly debunked by researchers who classified it as an interstellar asteroid
Those researchers are going to look bloody stupid when First Contact happens...
Petite tranchet arrowheads go back to the Mesolithic which was a few thousand years beyond the C15th.
Oh yes of course, I wasn't trying to suggest that the bow and arrow were a new idea in the 15th Century, rather that they were still considered a decisive weapon at that point.
It wasn't until the late 15th that firearms were starting to be used on battlefields in Europe, and of course initially only as bloody big cannon, not hand-weapons.
I'm not sure when it did originate
10th century, according to various sources - it is originally of French / Norman origin, long before the Grimms happened upon it.
For context, the Chinese were just beginning to use fire lances at the start of the 11th century.
The Battle of Agincourt, which was notable for the mass use of the longbow as a decisive weapon, wasn't until 1415, (15th century) and the first hand-held firearms appeared in Europe a decade or two later.
I forgot, sarcasm doesn't get across very well on El Reg unless you add /sarc...
Yes, she would for initial investigations. But as he was shot facing her, it'd be self defence and she'd be let off.
Really? Going on recent history in the UK, she'd more likely have been convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, attempted manslaughter, and parental neglect...
Traditionally, Little Red Riding Hood was saved by a hunter / woodsman with an axe, no firearms involved...
Yes, thanks, I was aware.
In fact I was watching the film with my daughter this weekend, but don't tell anyone...
It scans and everything...
It's not, it's I'm going t' pub, where t' is an contraction of 'to the'
Yes, that's right, but frank ly is also correct, as you originally wrote I'm from't north.
Wrinkly and smelly, and crackle when you bend them?
I'm a bit older than five and I've never learnt how to catch a ball.
Tell you what, I'll change my statement to read "most five year olds" how's that?
And the point is, that robotics and AI are nowhere near achieving even the basic building blocks of the systems which would be necessary to enable a robot to catch a ball.
Boston Dynamics Atlas robot has just about mastered the basics of walking, running and jumping without falling over, But it's not autonomous, it has no reasoning, and cannot even identify if a ball is thrown at it, never mind catch it.
it will be a long, long time before a robot can detect a spherical object travelling through the air towards it, calculate the trajectory, take into account wind, friction, spin and all the other factors, and move itself or place its end-effector in the right place to intercept and capture the object.
Or catch a ball, as any five year-old can do.
It's just a knee-jerk reaction in the finest tradition.
We already have Interpol, which mostly works, so why not just add an Infosec branch to the existing organisation... And whatever you do, avoid the C word when you name it.
Hmmm, "Rapid Response Force" and EU bureaucracy don't sit well together.
"Cloud" is a magic place where only the initiated may tread.
T.A.H.I.T.I. - "It's a magical place"
Get it, twerp?
I don't think you get it, do you.
Assange IS a fugitive from justice - he jumped bail and went running to the Ecuadorian embassy. He's still wanted for that.
The Brits won't send him to the US unless there's an extradition warrant issued, which there isn't, and never has been.
I do wonder if half the people who splurge the SJW acronym around even know what it stands for, nowadays.
If evidences may put sources at risk, you may want to avoid that.
So that means then, that governments, or journalists, are free to publicly accuse an individual or company of malfeasance without presenting any evidence to support those accusations.
This is surely not how it should be?
...doth protest too much
I sense a shift in editorial stance on this, and I wonder why.
If governments want to claim that Kaspersky is a security risk, perhaps they'd like to offer some evidence of this.
Why would El Reg ask Kaspersky for evidence that the US is persecuting them? It's quite obvious that the drive to demonize Kaspersky started ever since Kaspersky's Antivirus identified malicious software on an NSA staffer's machine in 2014.
While Windows NT 4.0 pointed to a future free from MS-DOS, the majority of the Windows user base simply did not have the hardware to run much more than a jumped-up version of Windows 95.
To be fair, the original NT 4.0 was not really suitable for use as a home O/S, it took quite a few service packs before that was useful, and the price compared to 98 was prohibitive as well.
Plus, it didn't have drivers for many common domestic peripherals. Even network cards were a bloody nightmare to set up under NT 4.0, I remember fighting with a 3Com Etherlink 3C509, fiddling with dip switches to set the IRQ and memory range for hours before NT would work with it.
Honestly gov, yes, yes I did rob all those banks, but that was back then! I'm operating under new rules now. I've got a new code of conduct. So you should definitely let me be the head of the Royal Mint, so I can prove to you just how much I've turned over a new leaf...
“Shall I tell you about angels, Mr. Lipwig?" said the Patrician pleasantly. "I know two interesting facts about them."
That's more than five years beyond the May 2014 end of support for the OS.
That's not true for XP Embedded, which is what most ATMs would run, it's still in support for another year.
And it has very little attack surface compared to the desktop version.
So in what way, then, was this car "autonomous", If the "safety driver" was supposed to be watching the road and liable to have to take over at any second.
As far as I can see, the combination of Uber vehicle and safety driver were incapable of avoiding an accident, in conditions where a full time driver in a "normal" car would have avoided it.
Indeed a normal production car with autobrake and collision avoidance (ie. what the Volvo should have been capable of) could have possibly avoided the accident without driver intervention, which makes the standard production Volvo more of an automaton than the prototype Uber vehicle.
any amount you can hold in one hand.
So, a 5 litre keg should be fine...
We've had a number of these to various addresses within our organisation today, including the Chairman!!!
Oops! That caused a flurry...
Like another commentard above, we deal a lot with local authorities in the UK, and did wonder where these addresses were being harvested from. Interestingly, none of the addresses are flagged on haveibeenpwned.com as yet.
Without this context, this document could be misinterpreted to the detriment of TSB's customers.
Without this spin, the document could be correctly interpreted to the detriment of TSB.
There is also the homophone "nob" - possibly an old variant - which referred to a head or someone from the UK upper classes.
That's just a shortened form of the word "nobility" though, isn't it?
You need to grasp the problem firmly...
You CANNOT migrate on-prem workloads to the cloud as-is, or this kind of stuff happens - and it is your fault, not the cloud provider.
But, but, but... My Boss said that Microsoft said that we could migrate our on-prem Exchange to Office365 with no issues, and all the ickle birds would tweet, and every cloud would be rosy-pink, and all the flowers in the garden would bloom, and beer would be 10p a pint...
Are you saying they LIED to him?
For most, that means get a new browser, but the requirement also applies to systems connecting to PayPal's APIs.
A great wailing and gnashing of teeth was heard from our developers when they realised they would have to recompile their precious PayPal integration code using a version of .NET which was vaguely modern.
They were trying to blame Ops, saying it was a server problem. Au contraire, fellas, our servers happily support TLS1.2 in and out, get your shit together!
Or Tommy Flowers
He built Colossus, not the Bombes.
Ah, this is the one hand-built by Alan Turing / Benedril Cabbagepatch, is it?
No mention of Harold Keen or Gordon Welchman...
and white handbags
Eugene and his ilk sell nothing but snake-oil anyway.
So Jake, you totally discount all the useful work that Kaspersky Labs do in identifying and warning about malicious software?
Or perhaps you think it's all misdirection and a Commie plot?
There is no reason to go to such obscure lengths, there are already perfectly good mechanisms by which a customer can have a token stored for future use which do not need card details or CVVs to be retained.
Dixon Carphone obviously thought they could do it their own way.
Because unfortunately most of us are lazy and don't want to have to enter our details every time you're ordering something.
Even then, if done properly, there is no need to store the full card details anywhere on the system.
Instead, you store an authentication token from whichever payment gateway provider you use (Verifone, World Pay, All Pay etc) which is generated on the first purchase. This authentication token is unique to the user's card and CVV, and can therefore be used for subsequent purchases.
You would typically store the last four digits of the card, simply to be able to present it visually to the user in their account details on your site, so they can identify the card, but it isn't used for transactions.
The CVV should never, ever be stored.
Or rather, it is not available yet, at all.
There are glimmers of AI in various labs around the world, which are attempting to mimic the operation of the human brain, using neural nets and other techniques, but no, mining datasets is not AI.
As I said above, the term Artificial Intelligence has been hijacked by marketing types to mean data manipulation, but it is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, intelligence of any kind.
Artificial Intelligence is not generally available yet, as despite the hijacking of the term, data-mining != AI.
Among PHBs, human intelligence is pretty scarce too.
I mean my car has never once shat on the lawn,
Land Rovers are well known for marking their territory, in much the same way as dogs or cats do.
Short answer, yes a human would have seen the pedestrian in time.
The Uber video shown is not representative of the actual lighting conditions on the road at the time of the accident.
If you look here https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/ you will see a whole different story.
You assert that a "comparable human driven vehicle would not" have killed the poor pedestrian.
Humans kill quite a lot of pedestrians every day.
Yes they do, for all sorts of reasons, both the pedestrians' fault, and the drivers' fault. That has nothing to do with this specific case.
In the particular circumstances of the Uber accident: a well-lit multi-carriageway road, in dry weather, with good visibility, and a pedestrian crossing the road in plain view for many seconds, I put it to you that it is unlikely that a human driver of a non-autonomous vehicle would have killed the pedestrian.
So yes - there was a driver who was legally in control of the vehicle and managed to kill someone.
You persist in trying to muddy the waters here, and I wonder why?
The supervising driver was at fault, because they were not concentrating on the road, and were not in a position to override the vehicle in time to prevent the accident, but the fact is that the vehicle should have been able to avoid the accident by itself, and didn't.
The circumstances of the accident were not some strange or random edge-case which caught the vehicle's logic out, there was a pedestrian crossing the road, in clear view for many seconds, and the vehicle drove into them without braking or trying to avoid them.
A human driver in manual control of a vehicle would not have behaved in that manner, they would have attempted to avoid the accident in some way.
There *was* a human driver - they still ran straight into a pedestrian.
No, there wasn't. There was a human passenger with responsibility to monitor and override the vehicle.
You cannot equate that with a human who is fully engaged in driving the vehicle, the awareness and concentration required is completely different.
Which is why in all those cases the human behind the wheel is still responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. We absolutely know that the Uber driver wasn't doing their job, and I think it's pretty clear that the Tesla owners weren't doing what they should have been either (remembering that the Tesla isn't an autonomous vehicle).
But that's dodging the issue. Lets ignore Tesla for the moment, which are not autonomous, but in the Uber case the alleged autonomous vehicle wasn't capable of avoiding a simple collision without human intervention.
What's not acceptable is when the accidents are of such a nature that they would not have occurred if the vehicle was being driven by a normally competent human in the same circumstances."
Whether or not there was supposed to be a responsible human, that doesn't change the fact that the vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian, in circumstances in which a comparable human driven vehicle would not.
I'm not convinced that humans can instinctively control a vehicle, and I'm pretty sure that many of them have no idea what they are doing, even after significant training and a small test.
If a human driver - even only a learner driver - was put in the same circumstances as the Uber crash, it would not have happened. A human driver would have seen the victim, and either slowed down or manoeuvred the vehicle to avoid a collision.
Even a learner driver on their first ever outing would not have blithely continued and run into the victim. This is what I mean about the built in instincts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018