"Better warm up the legal department, lawsuits are going to fly"
Maybe they can practise on "Microsoft Lawsuit Simulator" first...
1010 posts • joined 25 Mar 2013
"Better warm up the legal department, lawsuits are going to fly"
Maybe they can practise on "Microsoft Lawsuit Simulator" first...
"Hold the lever to keep the switch gear between the two tracks in an attempt to derail the train & thus save everybody."
Should be "Hold the lever to keep the switch gear between the two tracks in an attempt to derail the train & thus kill some, or all, of the people on the train".
I would have guessed serial killer, but that's not work, more of a hobby really...
This does sound like a legitimate use-case for an unpatched x86 system; if you're essentially using it in an appliance, and no third party code is running then it makes no sense to patch it and take the performance hit. If someone is able to run their malware on your SAN operating system, then they probably don't need to use Spectre or Meltdown to get what they want.
Based on this article (total length = 530km and estimated cost of £56 billion), £180 buys 1.7mm of track...
"They don't need landing wheels for a suicide mission."
Possibly, or it could be an obvious weight saving measure; many commercial miniature UAVs don't have landing wheels. They may even have hoped to recover some of the drones if they'd been successful.
"The lack of metal parts was probably an attempt to avoid radar detection."
Possibly, but equally it's also a weight saving measure, and plastics, composites and wood are a lot easier to work with than metal airframe construction techniques.
" judging by MS' "success" of Skydrive branding, we may be looking for some Onebell tomorrow"
I think Bellend is more appropriate...
"Lithium, the most reactive metal in the universe, in the same package as oxygen. What could possibly go wrong?"
The risk will depend on the actual chemical compounds that the lithium and oxygen are part of, you can't just make a statement based on the elements (otherwise who would have salt at the dinner table - a tasty mix of poisonous gas and explosive metal eh?)
"Presumably these registrations and safety testing will be accompanied by some nominal fee and the fines for non-compliance will be rather substantial"
But most of the "offenders" won't have the money to pay the fines and so there won't be any money in this for government, as usual it will cost more tax-payers money to enforce than it will make in revenue, especially if they end up damaging the market and losing VAT on the lost sales.
The motivations seem a bit unclear, maybe they just want to have a monopoly on peering over garden fences...
"Last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that collecting our communications is a serious intrusion that can only be justified to investigate serious crime."
So it will all be legal on March 29, 2019; seems like "taking back control" means taking total control...
"Pass me my phaser. It's the one with bad mother------ written on it".
As in "Phaser, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfucker in the room; accept no substitutes"...
I meant to add that the likelihood is that, for the country as a whole, the ROI is positive. But the ROI will be hugely positive for some areas and hugely negative for others, so private investment wants only to do the profitable bits.
Like other national infrastructure projects (e.g. the armed forces) we spread the bill amongst tax payers on the basis that they will all, in theory, benefit from the investment.
If we see broadband as a national imperative, with benefits across multiple sectors (employment, commerce, education etc.) then we have to invest as a nation, trying to create a false market economy in this area has achieved nothing; for most of us there is still only one physical broadband connection (BT copper) and all we have managed to do is give consumers a choice companies they can pay for using it.
I take your point about consumers being forced to subsidise infrastructure, but the supermarket analogy doesn't really apply; when it comes to supermarkets you do have the choice of driving further to get to the type of supermarket you want.
At the moment the problem is that, for the majority of the UK, there is no commercial incentive to roll out fibre. It's a bit like there's no commercial incentive for private companies to build toll roads to villages; the costs are so high that you would never get a viable user base to pay it off faster than the interest on the capital investment accrues.
So it has to be seen as a national infrastructure project, and the government has to decide whether it's willing to fund this out of taxes; maybe it could be presented alongside HS2 or future airport expansion to see which gives the country a better economic outcome?
Trying to create a "market" for this to attract private investment has been a failing policy since Margaret Thatcher cancelled BT's project in 1990.
The problem is they called themselves "Privacy International", which means they're something to do with foreigners! If they'd called themselves "UK Privacy" or "Privacy England" then GCHQ would have realised they're a British organisation, who are only going about their lawful business, and left them alone...
"I would like to see some numbers showing the proportion of crimes where the crims have been shown to use encryption."
I'd like to see some numbers showing the number of violent crimes where the criminals would NOT have been able to commit the crime WITHOUT encryption.
I suspect it will be a small number, probably pretty close to zero, and should indicate how pointless the whole anti-encryption argument is in preventing real crime (as opposed to thought crime) and improving public safety (we're pretty safe already I think).
"A quaser is a cross between a quasar and a Quaver"
So a crunchy snack with an energy output equivalent to millions of stars?
I think the cost issue will be important for owners; the proposed system looks like it is just a software upgrade for many existing drones, so if some kind of regulation does come in, at least owners will be able to make their current kit compliant without having to pay for the privilege.
It's also a win for the potential regulators; if existing kit can be made compliant then it will be easier for them to work with the industry (drone operators and drone manufacturers) to get this accepted.
"Being not of the UK, I can't help think that the stuff that you lot make as being overly complicated and not good for purpose (cars etc)"
I think you'll find that a lot of things made in the UK are definitely fit for purpose; like the Mercedes F1 car, made in Brackley, which is powered by a Mercedes engine, made in Brixworth. Some competitor products seem to be a bit less reliable though...
Like this one?
"Given the costs involved, this should be designed and operated to last the lifetime of the station, despite the harsh conditions."
Maybe, but most of the engineered products you're familiar with have been through many generations of design, operation and improvement, as well as competing against similar devices; so they are the result of accumulated wisdom on solving a particular problem.
The arm on the ISS is a second generation product (the first was on the Space Shuttle) and the opportunities for inspection and maintenance are pretty limited.
Even if a product is perfect and built to last a lifetime, it can still require replacement if it gets enough abuse from the users...
"the main protagonists of the stories end up dead or badly damaged"
That's down to Special Circumstances...
"Your humble hack found it hard to even listen to his Microsoft handler, who became a disembodied voice once the set was turned on"
This actually sounds like a good feature...
“A Linux log has a different format to an Oracle database log; that’s why it’s so bloody hard for an analyst to go through all these records and figure out what’s going on.”
So Oracle are changing their log format to be the same as Linux? That's completely within Larry's powers, I think; so let's see what happens...
And what about the management team who set up a "system" that would break if one person forgot to do something?
When you have fallible components, like humans, then the systems that include them have to have redundancy (not firing them) and resilience; usually at least two people involved to ensure that the check-lists are followed correctly, maybe a third person to test and sign off the updates. If these things aren't in place it's because the "system" is deemed to be of low importance and not worth spending money on to get it right.
Putting the blame on a single person is just scape-goating of the worst kind.
I was just wondering if this was Dyson's "C5 moment"; Sinclair was the poster child of the UK technology sector until then...
I think the problem they're trying to solve "phones free from corporate control" isn't going to be solved by hardware; as others have posted, it's just too expensive to develop and market a phone, and the list of would-be phone makers gets longer every year.
Linux succeeded because it didn't try to sell you a new computer, instead it made it possible to free existing hardware from proprietary operating systems, often giving them better performance than the original software. As Linux became more accepted, some manufacturers even started offering it as a supported OS.
What I'd like is a phone operating system that I can install on existing hardware (get rid of Bixby on my S8+ for a start!). Obviously this is not an easy trick, and there are some issues with getting around built-in blocks that manufacturers put into phones, but having something that could be installed on old iPhones or Samsung Galaxy 6s would allow the project to get started and make it possible for developers all over the world to contribute - just like Linux.
Tying the software to a specific hardware platform will just make it a short lived, niche product.
"But what if I hire one of these "Bad Hombres" I keep hearing about?"
I think you'll find they're the best kind of deterrent against intruders...
"As it happens I think that we're inexorably moving towards a point where companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. can operate only under license"
Who's licence? America's, Russia's, North Korea's? China's got one, and it's enforced by their "Great Firewall"; is that what you want for every country?
Given the Death Star's abysmal performance in asymmetric warfare, it sounds just the kind of thing the MOD would want...
Looks like they'll be targeting you with tinfoil hat advertisements...
Have a beer; it doesn't track how you drink it (you can slurp it, if you want), there's a large choice of brands and types and AI systems aren't better at drinking it than humans (until someone invents the Bending Unit)
I thought of this, and I'm going to contact them to find out; even if this is the case, registering a .uk domain purely in the hope of reselling it is in contravention of Nominet's rules, so it can be challenged through their Dispute Resolution Service.
On the plus side, at least you won't be claim-jumped of you do want your .uk domain.
I have a [surname].org.uk domain, and fancied having the [surname].uk domain (according to the rules .org.uk has second dibs on .uk domains after .co.uk) but it seems to have been registered by a non-UK company operating a "domains for resale" business (http://www.amazingdomains.co.uk/) in contravention of the rules for .uk domains.
"DDCMS estimated that almost 94 per cent of UK homes and businesses (4.5m) currently have the option to buy superfast broadband"
I'm not sure if this is an error in the article or DDCMS having their facts wrong, but 4.5m is not "94% of UK homes and businesses"; a simple Google search found this article that there are around 23m dwellings in the UK.
His own belief is that “humans and machines will be the winning combination.”
So probably a fan of Iain M. Banks and Neal Asher then...
I think your point about cyber-professionals is valid, but this is a national security issue that will be with us as long as we're using IT in critical infrastructure; so it's worth investing in long-term solutions like a dedicated unit within GCHQ. It will take time to build the skills, but it's the difference between a nation having it's own army and paying for the loyalty of mercenaries.
I agree that most people in these organisations want to do as good a job as possible; my point was that, rather than fine healthcare experts or gas-supply experts for being crap at cyber-security, we should be making use of government cyber-security experts to help them. I'm pretty sure that increasing GCHQ's budget to cope with the extra load will be more effective than throwing NHS money at external consultants, like Capita, to solve the problem; it might even be cheaper than what we're paying for already if we pool the budgets of the various critical infrastructure organisations into a single pot.
"In the event of a breach, critical infrastructure organisations could be liable for fines of up to £17m, or 4 per cent of global turnover, under the government's proposals to implement the EU's Network and Information Systems (NIS) directive from May 2018."
This makes no sense whatsoever; how would fining the NHS improve security? The fine is paid for using the same taxes we need them to spend on saving lives, and would only be triggered in the event of something going wrong.
How about being proactive and empowering a separate body to review and improve cyber-security for critical infrastructure organisations? This would fall under the defence budget and should probably be implemented, or at least overseen, by GCHQ**; failure to cooperate should result in jail time for senior management from the critical infrastructure organisations rather than meaningless fines from the public purse.
** This should be one of GCHQ's primary roles anyway if they're supposed to be the UK's primary organisation for cyber-security. It might also keep them too busy to indulge in snooping on the UK public.
"Don't like OBD II"
So you'd prefer to be held to ransom by a manufacturer's proprietary interface to diagnose problems with your car? Unless you want to go back to carburettors and dumb (no anti-lock) brakes (why not go the whole hog and abandon disc brakes too) you need a way to talk to the car's systems and using the same interface makes it easier for non-franchise dealers to work with vehicles.
"to hell with the 2000s, I'm going back to the 1990s"
"Blind curiosity will be our undoing"
Developing weapons is not curiosity, it's a reaction to the unknown state of our perceived enemies; if we're not certain that the other guy doesn't have [proposed mega weapon] then we'd like to have the [proposed mega weapon] ourselves, just in case.
The way out of this is to have a validated treaty so that we can be certain enough that we aren't putting ourselves at a strategic disadvantage by not having [proposed mega weapon]; the validation is a little tricky, depending on the complexity and difficulty of creating and testing the [proposed mega weapon], but nations have worked on this before to restrict work on biological weapons, for example.
The non-proliferation side of things is a key element here, nations who are able to develop AI weapons shouldn't be able to trade them; otherwise nations with internal stability issues will be tempted to solve them using systems that are incapable of making moral judgements as to whether the proposed solution is right or wrong.
"A truly smart weapons system would therefore recognise that the most efficient way to end a war, with the lowest possible casualty count, would be to target the combative leaders."
Truly smart AI weapons would declare themselves neutral and force the "combative leaders" to decide the result by unarmed single combat; they'd also make it pay-per-view so they can rake it in at the box-office.
Bite Their Shiny Metal Asses
I guess these guys can also tackle America's obesity problem as well...
Innocent until forced into accepting a plea-bargain...
I think that in this case "dawn raids" refers to unannounced raids on properties to collect evidence, not necessarily that they turn up at 04:00 with a SWAT team.
"Why are they being used by the tax agency??????????????"
I think they want to avoid giving suspects a week's notice to take the Enron route of shredding the evidence.
"Its time there was proper public oversight (i dont mean by vested-interest parties like courts/judges)"
If you don't trust the legal system to manage the legal process, who do you trust? If judges are corrupt, you have to prove that and replace them, not invent a parallel layer to perform the same function (who's to say your new layer is incorruptible anyway).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018