My guess is Google Techs will cause significant disruptions to service when handling cables, if only because the existing monopolies have done so little maintenance the existing wires practically fall to bits when handled. If I was at Google I'd have the technicians religiously documenting before and afters of every pole touched, paying particular attention to any preexisting wear and tear. Otherwise AT&T will probably tie the whole thing up in court all over again.
1234 posts • joined 28 Jul 2011
Re: Where are the Drone Jammers then?
It will happen. Maybe not at any significant scale, but at least someone will try it if only to see if it can be done (and/or they can get away with it.) Also don't forget there's money to be made by the paparrazi rats if they can catch the latest supermodels going topless or celebrities doing crack in a hedge or whatever sells the rags these days.
"Why do the police keep doing this?"
Because it's only news when they are refused; "Okay officer, come in and grab a coffee while we pull that up for you" probably happens thousands of times a day.
As a side note if the police need a warrant for the information and get the data without one, then it would be illegally obtained and inadmissible in court.
Re: I agree, traffic separation is the answer
It's an incentive for citizens to not own their own car. Ideally the best way of achieving this would be cheap & reliable taxis, but with the various interest groups keeping cab fares up this is probably the next best option. Ideally someone can do 95+ percent of their travel on foot/bus/tube, and very occasionally shell out for a taxi if they have an urgent journey, heavy shit to carry etc, and they still don't have to queue with the hoi polloi.
Re: Easily turned around...
I would say most people already know that holding a door for someone could be a bad thing, but it is so astronomically unlikely in most workplaces that they will do it anyway because a) it's polite, and b) being the only one to shut the door on strangers or colleagues is a one way ticket to being labelled as a tinfoil hatted nutter and openly mocked.
If the company really cares about this, they will have secure entry gates like other posters have mentioned. If they haven't, they don't care and are just paying lip service to this threat vector so they can scapegoat an employee if someone does get in this way ("We train all our employees on security matters, unfortunately proper procedure was not observed")
If only there were some other way of measuring or predicting if the conditions are likely to be icy. I'm no scientist, but I'm told ice is usually quite cold. Maybe our top boffins could see if there's any pattern to how cold it has to be before ice forms and invent some form of... I don't know, thermal meter or something?
I remember El Reg making this allegation in the original article(s), they added nothing to support it at the time beyond a quote from the company that said something along the lines of "Blackberry is cooperating with law enforcement services" which is pretty standard boilerplate PR.
I didn't find any links confirming messages had been handed over and most other news agencies were reporting that BB's cooperation was mainly to suspend messaging services in London temporarily so they couldn't be used to organise riots.
"Over the years in question, the relationship between UK Government – notably the Cabinet Office – and the large systems integrators, in particular, became increasingly strained"
This wouldn't be at all related to the embarrassment of the Olympics where the government had to get the Army in to cover the incompetence of large systems integrators, would it?
I think if KickStarter is at fault it's because they provide a sheen of respectability to shysters and incompetents; precisely because as another commenter noted they present to the public the impression that they have tight controls in place to keep out fraudsters and people who haven't actually got a working product yet. Whereas in actual fact these controls appear to be just smoke and mirrors.
If you take a look at eBay, I would bet you still find a fair few dodgers on there still. In fact a pal of mine knows all too well it's still easy for a seller to mail out a broken piece of shit and swear blind it was mint condition when sent. Perhaps the 'dodger magnet' phase is something internet platforms just have to go through as they mature.
Re: All the risky of being a shareholder...
"- If the company fails then you get nothing, while this can be true as a shareholder I believe if a company folds then after debts are paid the shareholders are entitled to something, this does not apply to kickstarter AFAIK."
That's pretty much a technicality as a company usually only folds when it can't pay it's debts. In that case the creditors might see pennies in the pound as liquidators wind up the assets, shareholders wont see squat.
I think there are two main issues with kickstarted organisations:
- Key difference is with successful startups - traditional investors will own a percentage and see dividends whereas KS backers just get a product and then you're done. This isn't inherently terrible as long as the backers don't put in too much money and properly understand the risks. Hopefully this comes to be more the norm as this type of funding matures.
-The other thing is the level of control backers have after a project is funded and the money is gone. The thread has already touched on the issue of delivery dates sliding as the project snowballs into something that needs an industrial production line, but it also includes the project dropping promised features or dropping in unwanted extras or extra hoops to jump through that piss the backer off. Examples include hidden costs for shipping outside the US, or having to give a credit card number to sign up to their store. The backer generally can't do shit about any of these except ask for a refund, which they are unlikely to get unless it can be proven the project clearly and unambiguously stepped over a line somewhere.
Re: How far off? @Gomez Adams
The drunk can't take a shortcut in this metaphor, because he is bound to his sober friend. The sober friend is the true position of the walker, and the drunk is true position +/- some error. So in a working GPS drunk is always close to sober within the error margins (the high walls on the path.)
In the 10 metre box example, cutting the corner won't decrease the overall length measured as the next measurement is just as likely to be outside the box which increases the distance the error covers. For any path - square, circle or winding lane - the error has a 50/50 chance of being on one side or the other, which is what causes the zigzagging that increases perceived distance.
'legal right to request'
I have the 'legal right to request' a 10Mbps connection right now, I fail to see what this weasel worded bollocks will do for anyone:
Other things I currently have the 'legal right to request':
A million pounds
Sex with Jennifer Lawrence
A Prime Minister that hasn't had his dick in a pig
If companies get to spout bollocks like “a mass streamlining to unlock the organization’s operational efficiency by deploying scalable city level frameworks” then taking management hostage should be described as "aggressively securing key assets to better leverage significant concessions in an asymmetric negotiating environment."
"No internet connection needed"
How do you justify saying no internet connection needed in the title? It looks like the malware would most likely be contracted online and the ransom payoff would be done online just like its predecessors in the field of malicious encryption. Was 'No C&C server needed' not good enough clickbait?
Economy of scale. If criminals have access to a thousand real names they are less likely to do anything with them as they'd have to look them up in public records manually or pay an underling to do it, which would take a while, cost time/money and possibly attract attention. Give them a thousand names with birthdays already associated with them, and there's more likely to be trouble for some poor souls.
Re: other drivers for a plan
Jail time? Pure Industrial espionage would largely be a civil matter or at worst "white collar" tricky-to-prove crime like fraud. Engineering a disaster that triggers a recovery plan however would involve some fairly serious criminal damage at the very least.
And anyone who was mental enough to try something like that would soon find they don't have the time or the privacy to go rifling through data as some fairly important eyes would be on them asking when the systems would be back.
Re: Counter Drone
Your fishing line comment makes me wonder if a skilled angler could cast at a drone with enough accuracy to tangle a rotor? Small weight in place of a fishhook, less likely to cause trouble than a gun, and incontrovertible evidence that the drone was flying within X feet of you if you did catch it.
Re: anti-drone drones
Last time these were discussed I suggested strapping some rotors and an automatic lid closer to a wheelie bin for live drone capture in a low budget homage to You Only live Twice.*
*IIRC correctly we were discussing nicking stuff around the time amazon declared they wanted to do drone delivery.
I don't think this interference and consumer protection are comparable here, specifically because immunity from prosecution is mentioned in the spying scenario. That's a super dangerous precedent to set that could practically legalise straight-up lying to customers in contracts (way beyond current weasel wording.)
The way I read it government is trading commercial protection for the existing (co-operative) Oligopolies for the rights to trawl their data.
Think about it: this makes it impossible for companies to compete on a platform of privacy and non-cooperation with the spying agencies because immunity from prosecution for doing so makes any privacy clauses in contracts worthless.
I wonder if any of the big corporations has the balls to try and get this struck down for preventing them from freely contracting with their customers?
Re: Would it have been too much to ask
There are certainly compelling arguments for prioritising certain types of services like video. The argument is over the worry ISP's will use these exceptions as a smokescreen to sneak in faster connections for whoever gives them cashola and make it nigh impossible for smaller companies to compete on a level playing field.
Re: Very confusing article
If you read the article linked in the second paragraph re: Sir Tim it makes things a bit clearer; basically the legislation is already weak/Swiss cheese and the campaigners wanted the amendments.
The wording of this article is either really poor or the author has misunderstood the sequence of events.