But Apple won. Not only with this logo but also with another Pear Technologies logo that bears even less resemblance to the Apple logo. A pear made up of lots of different-sized squares no less.
But the squares do appear to have rounded corners...
499 posts • joined 23 Mar 2011
But Apple won. Not only with this logo but also with another Pear Technologies logo that bears even less resemblance to the Apple logo. A pear made up of lots of different-sized squares no less.
But the squares do appear to have rounded corners...
(Seriously, it might be simpler to require drone pilots to submit a flight plan for every flight. Like real pilots do.)
Not all real pilots. Class G is fairly loose, and that's where - by and large - drones should/will be operating. It's a rare thing for a glider pilot (for instance) to submit a plan unless they're intending to ride wave up to FL195 or otherwise play in lower Class C space.
IIRC, their product is uniquely identifiable to the customer. Much more sophisticated than daubing your postcode on with "invisible ink"
Yup, just using a chemical signature instead of daubing your property with numbered micro-dots (e.g. systems like Alpha-Dot).
Not that you'd want to daub firearms with either SmartWater or AlphaDots. They've got a serial number, and if that's been scrubbed off, then it probably means the gun's been butchered and you don't want it back anyway - just take the insurance and replace it.
I don't think the NRA in the US is useless. They seem to be getting almost everything that they want,
Oh, they're pretty useless. They're have absolutely no idea how to campaign, lobby, win hearts or influence people. They preach to the converted because it's easy, but consistently fail to make new friends.
They just about tread water by shouting "Muh Second Amendment" periodically, but when someone comes along with a law that isn't un-Constitutional (such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) they have no idea where to put themselves. The most they managed there was to get a sunset clause so it needed renewing after 10 years (and Bush Jr didn't, so it lapsed out).
If I can tie up a mobile phone to a FAC holder's address then some nefarious GPS tracking will tell me when the house is empty.
Crikey. Sounds a bit in depth. And is making the three rather dangerous assumptions that:
1. All FAC holders are single, therefore an FAC holder being out means the house is empty.
2. All FAC Holders store their firearms at home.
3. If the FAC Holder is out, their guns are actually at home (and they haven't taken them shooting!).
If you want their guns that badly, you'd need to stake out their house old-school to assess the number of residents and whether guns are being taken in or out, then plan the heist accordingly. GPS might be vaguely useful for checking if they're on their way home so you can avoid being disturbed in the act, but it's really just an additional tool on top of good old-fashioned thief-craft.
You'd also want to check where the nearest river is so you can dump the guns once you realise you've just stolen a single-shot .22lr target rifle which is worth £5k to the owner but utterly fucking useless for any criminal purpose.
We had a FAR better idea of where the Titanic went down and it still took nearly a century to find - and the Titanic is a lot bigger than a plane and went down in only two pieces instead of thousands that would be spread across a very wide area.
Yes, but we have better tech now. For instance, an Autosub 6000 can run off autonomously for 3 days at a time and run a multi-beam sonar survey to 1m resolution or better (depending on how fast you want to survey - resolution-vs-coverage).
But it's still a major undertaking - back of a napkin maths suggests you'd need ~200 such missions to cover 25,000sq.km. That's 600 survey days, which probably accounts for ~800 days at sea including turnaround, battery replacement and returning to port for provisioning/crew change. Of course if you were able to deploy 3 such subs from a single ship with minimal overlap (and tow a fish behind the mothership as a 4th instrument), then you could get the total mission time down to about a year. So that's quite quick by comparison, but tying up an entire vessel for 12 months is costly, though you'd hopefully be able to pad it out with some unrelated science whilst cruising between RV points.
Or you could do the inverse which is to dedicate 2-3 autosubs to the job and place them on vessels of opportunity - doing a cruise into the target area? Could you take this, throw it in the water near sector #137 and pick it up three days later? Ta.
It's certainly possible to continue the search fairly cheaply by piggy-backing off existing cruises and research. The deep ocean is fairly poorly mapped (to less than 1km resolution anyway), so hi-res sonar surveys have a scientific value in and of themselves.
For the doubters, a question - is Chess a sport?
the IoC officially recognizes it as such and there have been many famous international players and contests in history. Word is that chess may be accepted as an Olympic sport in 2020 too.
The latter bit, I doubt it very much. The IOC refuse to reintroduce contests for poetry or art (events which Pierre de Coubertin considered to be as - if not more - important than the physical sports in terms of promoting international and cultural cooperation), I don't see them introducing Chess. They're all about the televise-able, X-Gamesy events at the moment - new BMX/MTB cycle events, trialling rock climbing, etc.
But yes, both Chess and Bridge have been recognised by the IOC as "Mind Sports" for quite some time, though this recognition offers no entitlement to be included in the Games.
For the doubters - have a look at existing esports tournaments. Simon is being rather disingenuous when he comments "...will therefore include computer games. Or “e-sports” as they're now known."
Not all computer games are eSports. Only the ones that are both competitive and require some significant level of mental skill - League of Legends, DOTA2 (amongst others) represent a battle of wits and strategy akin to that offered by Chess. The big tournaments pull tens of thousands of spectators, and millions of online viewers on PPV streaming.
Seriously though, im astonished at the number of people that own guns...why?
You can't tell me "home defense" if you have to keep the thing locked up.
No indeed. Defence is not considered a good reason to own a firearm.
- Target sport (up to and including Commonwealth/Olympic Games)
- Pest control, protection of crops/livestock
- Game hunting
I'm not sure where in London you could fire a gun and not run the risk of shooting someone, or at least their property. Exactly what's the use of a shotgun in London?
Woolwich Barracks apparently - seeing as that's where they held the Olympic Shooting (yes, shooting is an Olympic sport).
Or any one of these clay pigeon sites listed by Spacedinvader (there are a few rifle clubs as well).
oh and probably on someones USB stick ---- well I hope they didn't email it to a yahoo acount!!
Nah, but when someone from YBM is summoned down to London from Leeds tomorrow, they'll be sure to leave it on the train!
Breach? Interesting choice of words. I suppose breach of trust, but not quite what we might think of as a "breach" (e.g. the TalkTalk hack). It's not much of a breach if they deliberately give the data away!
I suspect they're going to plead innocence under the very Data Protection statement mentioned in the article:
my GP, other government departments, regulatory bodies or enforcement agencies in the course of either deciding the application or in pursuance of maintaining public safety
MetTrace (clearly branded on the leaflet) is the Met's anti-burglary programme, and they'll say they were targeting firearm owners as a high-risk group of potential burglary victims - thus a high priority for public safety projects. The Firearms Team will say they only gave it to another division of the Met for an approved purpose and didn't know it was going to be sent to a third party for the mail-outs.
Of course, the fact that the Met already have a list of every firearm on their patch including a description and serial number is besides the point! You don't need smartwater to figure out where a recovered firearm has been stolen from!
But will May get the two-thirds majority in parliament that is needed to pull off this move?
Corbyn has already said Labour will vote for the motion.
But that just raises the question of how many Labour MPs give a shit what Corbyn thinks any more and will vote according to whether they think they can hold onto their seat or not (although going against the Party at this point could cost them their PPC nomination anyway).
So agile means "constantly adapating " ? read constantly bouncing from one fuckup to the next , paddling like hell to keep up , constantly firefighting whilst going down slowly like the titanic?
thats how i read it
The Agile Manifesto is really quite broad. It's a set of aspirations and promotion of a particular mindset.
For instance, SCRUM is not Agile. It can be agile, it can also be very non-agile. I know an agency which does continuous development on a scale of hours. Commits go through automated unit testing, which pitches it onto the Selenium testing battery and then goes to production - or flags red. Instant feedback for the developers - you're not trying to remember what you did two weeks ago and how it's now breaking your release, and because you're committing little and often, you know exactly what has caused a build failure. You submit the changes you made today and you fix anything you break today. They use SVN rather than Git specifically because SVN doesn't let you branch stuff off and then have massive merge conflicts when you try and commit massive changes in three weeks.
But they wouldn't say they subscribe to any particular acronym. They're just Agile. For a different company, or a different industry, Agile might mean something different - how they achieve the aims of rapid release and continuous development are entirely up to them, but might (for instance) draw inspiration from the Toyota Way, Kaizen and continuous improvement principles.
Clones pretty much almost killed Apple last time. Why would they go down that same road again?
When you look at revenue, Apple make the same from services as from Mac sales (~$7Bn in Q1 '17).
Anything Mac related is dwarfed by iOS sales.
Offering macOS as a license on approved or generic hardware would cater not just to pros but also to semi-power users like me who want the macOS/BSD environment but are seriously considering moving back to Windows because the hardware is better. I'm not buying a USB-C macbook pro, I'm not buying a trashcan Pro. I might buy a refurb macbook that has some ports, or I'd consider an OEM laptop onto which I could install macOS as a supported OS and get drivers for!
Yes, it would damage their hardware business, but they'd sell a bunch of licenses and software to people who would otherwise be licensing software for Windows...
And if they sold hardware at sensible, comparable prices, they'd sell a bunch of that as well - because it looks pretty and people like the build quality (even if you can't upgrade it).
The problem they face is that they're selling a premium product into a market where even a Chromebook looks relatively svelte - once upon a time you could identify a macbook from across a room because it wasn't an ugly hulking block of grey or black plastic. Nowadays everyone is doing nice product design and uni-body cases. The USP that Jonny Ive brought to Apple is dead and gone.
Okay, I say premium - how long did the Airs struggle on with a 1366x768 screen when laptops half the price had gone to HD? For a product aimed at "creative people", they weren't valuing the bit you looked at very much...
Writing this as a technicality, as I don't believe for a second he actually rendered the hardware useless. It's just a way of getting the 'value' of the crime up to Grand Larceny levels so they could send him down for a 10 stretch. He was an idiot, but overreaching prosecutors are a plague and a menace to society.
Puts you in mind of the Gary McKinnon charges, where the criminal damage to each computer accessed was claimed to be $1500 IIRC - $1500 "just happened" to be the value to move the charge from a misdemeanour to a more serious felony.
Not that I have any sympathy for this chap - if you're a revenge-minded individual then there are more obvious ways of ex-filtrating data or credentials without leaving a trail in your corporate e-mail, and subtlety was apparently a foreign concept. Less BOFH and more Boss, with the inevitable result that he got cuffed.
But I would concur that arbitrary damage valuations that just seem to be on the tipping point of a higher charge do make one quirk an eyebrow at the state of "justice".
Exactly what sort of 'disruptive design' are you wishing for, a flying wing?
Although that's not so much disruptive as an evolution of Concorde, but a delta wing will make a pleasingly distinct silhouette in the sky compared to other airliners.
Musk's employees are unquestionably one of the most satisfied group of people around, let alone workers. His approval rating on glass door is through the ceiling.
It requires the right "type" of worker as well though.
If you want a 9-to-5, you're not going to last long. If you're nearly as driven as Musk and start early/get thrown out by security in the evenings, put your job above your family or social life, then fantastic.
There's quite a few people have left and loved their time there, but were only able to do a few years before having to move on before they burned out.
By the sounds of it, he treats his staff well, but drives them really, really hard. Not unlike Gates in the early days of Microsoft who reputedly drove past his competitor's offices at weekends to see whose had cars in the parking lot. Applicants from companies that were closed up didn't get a look in - he only wanted grafters who he could use and abuse any time, any day of the week.
Great meme, but as they have aircraft, or at least will once they're in service, it's mostly bollocks.
Does it still count if they can only support one type of (fixed wing) aircraft that most countries are not allowed to buy, can't operate fixed wing support aircraft and are totally incompatible with our allies' other fixed wing assets?
Oh forever. The lifespan of this sort of hardware is multiple decades. Being late into service just means they'll last longer because they haven't done much for the first 16 years!
The original Mk1s entered service in 1980 with more delivered between 1984-86. These were returned and re-manufactured in Mk2s around 1990, and they acquired more new-build Mk2s in the mid-90s.
Those are the airframes now being brought to Mk4 standard some 25-35 years later.
The 8 Mk3s have very low flying/airframe hours for aircraft of their (calendar) age and having never been used in battle are basically "new". They'll become Mk5 and if they follow the example of their predecessors will be in service till at least the 2030s/40s, having had a slow and stuttering start to their careers.
There were also 14 brand spanky new Mk6s ordered in 2009 with deliveries completed in 2015 (they're based on the latest CH47F, rather than the MH47E that the Mk3/5s were derived from).
Although Virgin's two main competitors – BT and Sky – have gone all-in on IPv6 and now virtually every customer can use the protocol
Bit of a stretch.
BT Business customers are still waiting, as are residential customers with anything that isn't their latest greatest SmartHub - although granted that puts them far ahead of Virgin.
This gadget might have saved that booster.
No. This gadget appears to "live" in a blastproof garage at one end of the barge - their landings are not (quite) good enough to land on this device - the booster lands and this then scuttles out and stops it walking across the deck in rolling seas (instead of people having to board the barge and secure a large explosive tube).
If a leg fails to lock out, this won't save it.
If Apple wants to revive the tablet division, it could start taking those upscale creative types seriously: rethink the user interface, taking it beyond the simplistic design it's always had, and improve the wretched Apple keyboard.
Nevermind User Interface, a proper productivity machine needs a proper OS - macOS.
i5 with a full fat OS (with proper access to file system, etc), in a tablet-laptop package (or as Microsoft call it, the Surface Pro 4).
If Apple ripped off the Surface Pro 4 and made macOS work on it, there's a reasonable chance it would be my next laptop. Unfortunately that seems unlikely (they went with the two-OS strategy, so touch support in macOS is non-existent, as compared with MS who converged their mobile and desktop environments), and the new Macbook "Pros" have no wired I/O, which leaves one in a quandry... :(
How does that impact their other businesses?
It doesn't. Google Fiber is a distinct legal entity - a subsidiary owned by Alphabet. You could no more classify the rest of Alphabet as an ISP because of Fiber than you could classify Virgin Atlantic as an ISP because it shares a name with Virgin Media!
Looks to me like the $200 Million is a drop in the bucket compared to what's being paid for the SLS and Orion. I do wonder that if SpaceX get their man-rated Dragon flying if NASA will continue funding this?
Sadly not. Even once Falcon Heavy is operational, SLS will be bigger - significant if you're launching big science projects (like telescopes with big mirrors) that can't be assembled in orbit across multiple launches.
Additionally, even if FH matched SLS for size, NASA would want two systems available for redundancy in the event there was a problem with SpaceX. It's the same reason ULA continue to offer both Delta IV and Atlas V - two vehicles, designed independently, using different engines, etc (notably, Delta IV uses embargo-proof American engines, not Russian RD180s).
Once ULA's Vulcan vehicle and/or Blue Origin's New Glenn become available, then maybe they can take SLS out behind the fuel stores and put it to sleep at last. Even whilst "active", I'd be amazed if SLS launched more than two or three times given it's $500m/launch price tag, but they won't stand the product down yet. Even then, the only thing which will properly "replace" SLS (with it's massive 100-130tonne to LEO) will be SpaceX's behemoth ITS.
They would avoid the wasted fuel for the landing, and the additional chance of something going wrong due the engine restart/landing sequence
One the other hand, although you have recovered your expensive engines, you still have to manufacture a new first stage. Does that cost more or less than the additional fuel? And if your engines didn't restart for landing, you didn't want to reuse them for the next launch anyway!
It's a "proven" technique in that it's been done under duress to recover spy sat film canisters and NASA had a go for a sample-return mission (they missed and it crashed into the desert). Refining it for routine missions might increase the reliability but unless you develop a drone-helicopter to do the job, it still exposes human crews to far higher risk than SpaceX's autonomous landing.
being a Lockheed and Boeing conglomerate, have effectively been in the rocket business almost from the beginning and they don't appear to have the in house skills to design a new rocket so have outsourced it.
That has been my thought.
The joint might of the Boeing and Lockheed behemoths - two companies who have been involved in the US Space Programme since day one - carries so much weight and experience, that they've outsourced the design of their new hardware to a company founded in 2000 which has never performed a production launch and only ever performed sub-orbital tests and demonstrator flights.
imo the streamers will just switch to CDNs and other mixed services if they don't already use them, which a) have hundreds of servers, and b) carry so much varied content that blocking them would have way too wide an impact...
Yes, that was my first thought. How soon before someone starts bouncing it through AWS or Azure (if they aren't already), and we see over-blocking of unrelated services. They say overblocking is a "low risk", but it's an arms race - they've been able to run exposed servers so far, now the ISPs are running short-term, transitory blocks they'll run and hide behind Cloudflare/Akamai/<CDN>.
Well, at least they have not proposed a TLD of .local -- yet.
Give it time... this is ICANN after all.
Now how do customers in many places that have ISPs only offering IPv4 talk to you?
Stuff a tunnel broker or Cloudflare/CDN in front of it. Okay, more hassle than having a native dual-stack, but it works fairly easily for most web services.
Or, content providers could just get with the decade. I have literally this morning been introduced to a Server 2008 R2 box running IIS7.5. Which hasn't been touched since it was initially set up.
Scores F on SSLLabs and securityheaders.io because it offers SSL2/3 and TLS 1.0, but not TLS1.1 or 1.2 (it does actually need HTTPS - they do handle a small amount of sensitive user data, though nothing PCI related thank-fu..). It's vulnerable to every fashionable exploit except Heartbleed (DROWN, POODLE, BEAST, you name them). They were wondering why some people's versions of Chrome were throwing hissies with it.
But most crucially, IIS7.5 didn't support SNI - so they have a dozen or so sites running prehistoric "encryption" all consuming one-IP-per-certificate/domain.
I think I just found them 11 spare static IPs...
Indeed, this report reckons it's spotted >36.7milion IIS 7.x servers running in the wild. How many wasted IPv4 addresses could be salvaged by migrating to IIS8+ and enabling SNI? Not as many as if the US DoD gave back some of their /8s, but enough to let administrators run dual-stack a bit longer whilst ISPs slowly enable IPv6 for users!
I'm with Tim on this one. If DRM isn't a web standard, content providers will simply continue to use Flash or Silverlight.
"This application requires Silverlight"
Two days later
"Your version of Silverlight is out of date"
"Your version of Silverlight is out of date"
Uninstalls the entire plugin and reinstalls from scratch
"Silverlight not detected. Please install Silverlight"
I would much rather simply know that Firefox (for instance) doesn't have EME built in at all (and use that for day-to-day browsing in the knowledge that Paul Crawford's feared bits of embedded DRM can't be used for user tracking), and then have Chrome on the side for watching whatever (which is what I do anyway, because I'm not installed Flash or Silverlight into my day-to-day Firefox install).
I would contend it's better as an open standard that can be nixed with a uBlock equivalent where necessary than a closed blob of Flash or Silverlight.
And therein lies the stupidity of this. Certainly there's more than one programming language... does the customs people know this? Do they know the languages? If they're checking it, do they understand there's more than one way to do damn near do anything?
They don't need to understand it. They don't care about what you write. They're gauging your reaction at the request itself.
So that vendors know what to implement? TLS 1.3 is still a draft, the RFC was last updated 4 days ago.
How can the makers of network security tools and hardware be expected to support it when Google just rolled out their own implementation unilaterally?
They're not expected to support it. As an unknown extension they're expected to ignore it and negotiate gracefully down to TLS1.2. That's how TLS works - the server says "I don't know what <extension> is, how about TLS 1.2?".
"I don't know what <extension> is. I'll close the connection now."
If your TLS implementation doesn't support extensions gracefully, then you don't have a TLS implementation - you have a proprietary security suite that looks and works a bit like TLS but isn't actually compliant with the TLS standard.
While it may have been Googles fault for releasing a browser utilising that latest TLS release, Blue Coats ability to trip up over almost every SSL/TLS change in recent years suggests they are desperately clinging to old, flawed methods of handling SSL/TLS that keep hurting their customers.
This - Blue Coat had already had warning. Google released TLS1.3 in Chrome 56 but they'd released TLS GREASE in Chrome 55. GREASE was designed to test whether TLS implementations (which the standard says should be interoperable and version tolerant) actually deal properly with unknown extensions, and Blue Coat customers were complaining back then that GREASE was tripping up their systems.
Blue Coat's response was "the Proxy is not able to process this request as we don't support this unknown , nonstandard RFC extension". Which betrays a total failure to understand how TLS is actually designed to work - i.e. if a client sends an unknown extension, the server should just ignore it and they negotiate down to a mutually acceptable extension like TLS1.2. It shouldn't throw the entire connection.
1. Blue Coat should have seen TLS 1.3 coming
2. Blue Coat should be implementing TLS properly. It's literally their job.
They haven't ever launched anything out of Earth's orbit, they have no experience handling the radiation found there.
They employ lots of people who do. For precisely that reason.
Not that it matters for a 3 day jaunt around the moon. Unless you manage to catch a solar flare it's fine - we're not talking a 6-month transit to Mars here.
Of more interest is that some of the vital tech is now flight-proven even if Falcon Heavy hasn't launched yet. For instance, the most recent SpaceX mission (CRS-10) had an autonomous flight-abort/range-safety system - no need for a flight controller to be sat with their finger on a boom-button. That's the sort of tech required if you want - for instance - to have three first-stage boosters operating/landing on the range simultaneously. And they actually have a FH-capable pad now.
The capability to actually launch FH is now more or less in place, and moreover, enthusiasts have spotted boosters on the highway that differ from standard Falcon 9 boosters (rounded nose cones where you would normally have a cylindrical interstage).
Falcon Heavy does actually exist and the bits are now in testing, ready for transport to Florida, final assembly/integration and launch. After 5 years of vapourware, there is hardware to show for it and a pad ready to launch it. Unless they have another incident/grounding, there's no reason a FH Demo flight shouldn't launch this year. Crew Dragon should also be ready for a trip to the ISS, and then you've got everything you need for a quick jaunt out to Mun.
If Thomas is found to have acted with authorization, every company will wonder if that gives their sysadmins carte blanche to ruin their systems with no legal comeback. That's not going to sit very well in boardrooms.
Or just to use different legislation. I suppose it depends on the exact wording in your jurisdiction, but what he did would be equivalent to trashing the office on your way out - destroying furniture or putting a printer through a window.
It becomes a criminal damage charge rather than an unauthorised-access/computer-crime/"hacking" charge.
That said, I'm surprised there isn't a straight up clause in his contract to do with gross negligence or wilfully acting against the company's best interests or conduct which wilfully jeopardises operations.
Ermm, Wi-Fi is microwave.
In fact it even works on the exact same frequency as your microwave 2.4Ghz. Google may be using one of the other frequencies (it's a rather large range) in the microwave spectrum but the fact still remains.
Yes, but the architecture of a properly set up point-to-point distribution network is hardly comparable to consumer wifi or daisy-chaining crappy wifi repeaters. People do use them to do real work, and they are an excellent solution in some circumstances. Just because they use the same basic physics doesn't make them the same (just as a Range Rover and a Fiat Panda 4x4 are both 4WD vehicles does not give them the same capabilities!)
Sadly not a patch on a dedicated gig fibre line into each property however.
Better, I don't know. Faster, quite likely. At least in areas surrounding the Google Cities. Time Warner, now Spectrum, increased it's speed significantly in areas where Google was rolling out. Comcast also started pushing faster plans.
Indeed. Competition did actually spur on some development, at least locally. And even if you didn't take Google Fiber, then the contention on the backhaul from your existing provider's cabinet would have dropped as your neighbours did, which in principle would mean you got closer to your advertised speed more often. Diversity is good.
Sadly, it didn't translate to a more widespread rollout. Just direct competition in contested neighbourhoods.
Standard Windows 10 + WSUS would probably save a lot of time and money. They just need to test the patches, before they roll them out.
That is just supposition, but running standard Windows 10 is going to be simpler than rolling your own distro.
True, but running a fairly vanilla Ubuntu LTS with KDE would also be cheaper than rolling/supporting your own OS. They don't necessarily need to go to Windows to find cost savings.
Also I suspect that Linux is falling behind in some respects.
I'd be interested to know what they spend on maintaining their OS, seeing as they decided to roll-their-own LiMux distribution in favour of a standard LTS Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora environment.
Every IT department has to maintain appropriate software and ensure compatibility between the chosen OS and business-critical software packages and their respective updates. Few however have to compile their own OS. If they did anything at all esoteric with it, then that has to be supported through subsequent Linux kernel releases and updates.
Why waste words? I just hold him in contempt and be done with it.
For cost reasons, only the Silver and Bronze medals are solid. Gold is gold plated silver - so still precious metal throughout (they're not coating tin or something!), but not solid gold.
Caching is a problem, but users will reuse passwords and shitty ISPs will inject ads. You're protecting them from themselves and from their ISPs.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly for a business - Google are adding https to PageRank, meaning there is a commercial incentive to operate https if you want to be found.
There are aspects to PGP that don't make it a good tool for security, especially not when taking in data from informants. Read the book "Hut 6" by Gordon Welchman and you'll know what PGPs' problem has been from day 1: meta-data.
That depends what you mean by "security" though.
If security involves protecting content and/or verifying source, then it does that very well. The actual contents of a message and it's integrity can be encrypted and signed. This is what De-mail sought to do - allow people to send legal documents electronically.
By contrast if you want anonymity, then that's a related - but distinct - kettle of fish.
The needs of someone wanting to leak evidence of war crimes to Wikileaks (securely and anonymously connect to Wikileaks and then run like hell) are different to those of a business wanting to protect trade secrets and/or create an audit trail of correspondence.
In the former case, PGP is a terrible idea (in fact in the former case, e-mail full stop is a terrible idea. E-Mail is a fundamentally leaky system and you're better off with TOR or a Signal-like P2P solution). But in the latter case, it has a lot of potential.
You can't anonymously verify the integrity of a message (unless you have already established an out-of-band comms channel).
Other than I suppose the farmer can put his feet up. It doesn't make the field any bigger or the yield any better and steering a tractor in a straight line at 3mph is hardly an arduous task for a human anyway.
When your seed stock costs £1000/bag, cm-precision steering to prevent double-seeding adds up to tangible savings (along with the diesel savings). As does the analysis of crop growth and weed growth. That data can be fed into smart sprayers which will moderate spray-rate - this reduces chemical usage (good for the environment and the farmer's pocket). Additionally, knowing exactly where in a field your densest yields come from (and being able to put fertiliser strategies into place in areas with inadequate soil nutrients) does tangibly increase yield.
Additionally, GPS can drive a vehicle far straighter (and faster), than a human.
As the USA is not a signatory to the UN Convention (AFAIK) on Human Rights,
Or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - the USA holding the unique position of being the only UN Member not to sign it.
Even China, Iran, Saudi and Russia have signed it (granted some with certain reservations or stipulations).
It's standard in most browsers - they pre-load all the major sites which enforce HTTPS (i.e. use HSTS) - FB, Google, any reputable webmail service, etc.
The CIO is simply saying they will submit their sites to the HSTS Pre-load list.
Nothing sketchy about that - your browser has records pre-loaded for thousands of sites you don't use so a MITM cannot direct you to an HTTP clone the first time you use it.
I can't tell you how many spam calls I get.
This is 2017 and I have a mobile. My landline doesn't have a phone connected to it, just the router. I'm told I have a phone number, but I couldn't tell you what it is.
I can see there are certain people who need them for one reason or another, but I wonder how many people actually need a landline phone and only actually have one plugged in out of old habit, despite never actually making outbound calls with it.
SERIOUSLY??? If it is setup and uses the factory defaults, they will get in pretty damn easily. Mr Google will give you the default passwords for any WAP name that you enter into it's cavernous search jaws.
Have you been living in a cave?
Certainly in the UK all the big providers for the past few years have been randomising credentials at point of manufacture.
For instance, I can see three BT networks from here (BTHub5-XXX; BTHub4-XXX).
All three SSIDs are different, and googling them returns zero hits - much less the WPA keys!
And I can guarantee the default WPA keys on the back of each of those routers will be different, as will be the default admin password provided.
Happily, in the world of ISP-supplied routers, the days of admin:admin or admin:password defaults are largely gone (I'm sure some exceptions exist but I haven't seen any for a while now). Third party routers may be different, working on the assumption that if you're buying your own gear you're going to be going in and doing your own configuration and are sufficiently informed/motivated to change the defaults.
What the gent was suggesting was a "setup" wifi network with such randomised credentials, which you connect to and are then required to name a private SSID/key in order to get internet access. But I'm not really sure how that's better than a randomised/strong set of default creds.
The greater risk is the ISP leaving WAN ports open for TR-069 or some other management service without proper security, or otherwise not properly securing their network and doing proper ingress/egress control.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017