Re: Quite right too.
Yup ... as soon as Britain leaves Europe it will find its true place in the world. I think there's a lot of disillusionment coming.
53 posts • joined 10 Sep 2013
"Indeed, why should the rest of Australia subsidise the needs of a few gamers and commercial users."
Yup ... instead we should pay 90% of the cost of an FTTH network, and get less than 10% of the capability, bandwidth and scalability. In some quarters that may look like sound economics ... but from my perspective it's a short-sighted nonsense.
I got an HFC connection at my place, that absolutely will not go over 44/19.
The NBN ... building yesterdays network for tomorrow.
My thoughts exactly ... perhaps the system should be considered a failed binary. I'm guessing there are a few of those out there.
That said, the fact that they orbit every 2.6 days is unusual. Stable binaries typically have a much greater separation distance than what this orbit implies.
Announcements like this and the new, more reasonable, ISP charges always happen after some disastrous media coverage of the NBN.
Perhaps we should encourage more investigative journalism on the topic ... hey, we could even end up with a barely adequate broadband network rather than the fourth rate one they continue to build.
... is explaining how they spent 90% of what it would have cost to install a full fibre network, to give us an NBN capable of less than 10% of the performance. And when you factor in that the MTM install time has blown out by 4 years (and will probably blow out by more) ... well, the whole thing looks like a project management disaster of epic proportions.
Well, yeah .... but Apple have always been a hardware company (that also happens to do pretty seamlessly integrated software), whilst Microsoft has been primarily a software company (that has recently gotten into the hardware business).
Microsoft's business strengths have relied on it not being as capital intensive as Apple, of producing product that is replicable at pretty much low cost, and nowadays distributable at no cost - which gave/gives it margins that were the envy of everyone else.
Apple sees software as a value-add to its hardware - hence its freebie core value software and operating system strategy. They make no money at all on most of their software.
Microsoft software is produced across platforms, and hardware configurations, and runs on same very well ... whereas Apple only has to write the software for its limited hardware range(s).
Apple might be worth more in a share value/individual customer value sense, but Microsoft beats Apple on the profit per unit sold and percentages. When it turned its attention to hardware, Microsoft was never able to tap Apple's economies of scale, or own-chip fabrication capabilities ... which meant that Apple's margins were better on the hardware.
Better to stick to their strengths ...
Well, yeah but ...
A civilian drone could just as easily carry a kilo or two of remotely detonateable explosive, as a camera, or a pizza delivery.
But the same could be said for cars and car-bombs, and other means of delivering a big bang to the location you desire. As you said, they are a tool that can be used for multiple purposes.
Personally I think there'll be a kick back against drones solely because of their potential to mess with our privacy. Yes, the NSA can do immensely more damage to that than a drones, but a hovering drone and the sight of yourself on Twitter, YouTube or whatever doing something embarrassing or illegal is much more visible threat to the individual than the remote siphoning of your data feeds.
For mine, if you preach intolerance, discrimination and disrespect of others based on race, creed or whatever ... then you deserve to have the same intolerance, discrimination and disrespect centred on you.
Can't have it both ways. You're hoisted on your own petard as they say.
The more mature amongst us respect life's reciprocity, the bigoted and intolerant don't.
Rent seeking suits seek to enrich themselves whilst adding no value, and removing themselves from any scrutiny by those they answer to ...
What really hurts is that in the corporate sector of the Australian economy, such behaviour will be widely admired.
Sign of the times I suppose, but I'm glad this time a light was shone on it.
Well, yeah ...
Bottom line is that its the current DNS process, which is in place to ensure that the domain name issuers get their little piece of the pie, which make attacks like this possible. In the good old days the ENTIRE DNS data files/database was mirrored on a number of servers around the planet ... so a DOOS would have to hit them all to cause things to fall over this badly.
These days, all the hacker has to do is find out which commercial Domain Name provider provided which mega huge internet presence with its domain names ... and just hit that server. If anything this attack should result in a number of DYN clients going elsewhere (presumably to a less visible DNS provider)
What should happen is that ICANN points out that the current DNS verification and validation processes (which are only in place to protect the IP of the DNS provider) actually make it easier for the Ungodly ... and that perhaps total replication of the database across mulitple provider sand locations might be a good idea to revert to.
But that's unlikely - because nowadays ICANN represents the DNS providers.
"Fred Taxpayer can ill afford more by-elections."
No need for a by-election in the Senate. The convention is that the party from which the retiring Senator belongs is entitled to nominate their own new Senator -who, from memory is appointed by the State Premier. Exactly how this would affect the new Senator's term of office after a double dissolution is something I have no idea about (do they go to the bottom of the line and serve a three year term or are they entitled to the term that the original incumbent was serving?) ... but a by-election isn't necessary.
On Conroy's Communications contributions - as you point out ... a bit of a mixed bag.
ICANN has added value to the Internet and its users - how?
Seems to me it's been good for government and government control, it's been good for a host of bureaucrats who want to get on the gravy train, and it's been good for those who want to commercialise the net even more ... but for users, little numbers like the IETF and open standards, better domain name administration, assigned number allocation and the running of the net generally - it has made no discernible difference.
... Somebody getting some joy out of the government's snooping on its citizens, invading our privacy, and diminishing oru standard of life in ways that the terrorists could never hope to ... all in pursuit of an unattainable perfect security.
Of course, the fact that taxpayers (the 'snoopees') are paying for the government (the 'snoopers') to compensate third party rent-seekers for keeping the metadata and other info ('snooping') may be of concern to some ...
But it's good to see some joy being spread around.
Obsolete? Mmmm ... but only at 'the ends'. In other words, the devices capable of sending/receiving/detecting data over fibre.
The original fibre can be upscaled with higher data density (frequency modulation), more dedicated channels (colours) and upgraded protocols and multiplexing simply by replacing or software upgrading said devices. The same can't be said for twisted pair copper, HFC or any other medium the NBN is installing.
And as for those Node boxen ... well, lets wait and see how scalable, upgradeable, maintainable and repairable they are (in technical as well as cost aspects).
And my guess is that leaving a major capital investment in current obsolete technology out there, subject to the vagaries of weather, flood, fire and natural disaster, and indeed ever increasing consumer demand for more bandwidth and performance was not the smartest move. And we'll have 80,000 of these possible (probable) points of failure to contend with ... won't that be a joy.
Despite the fact that the NBN is spending billions of PUBLIC funds on an essentially obsolete network that will probably (on the government's own admission) not redeem a fraction of its build costs when sold ... the public does not need to know
1. How well the build targets are being met
2. What the relative performance stats are between FTTP and the MTM NBN
3. The fixed and operational costs pertaining to the different models
4. What build delays have occurred and the reasons for same, and/or
5. A relative cost-benefit analysis of the different models of the NBN
They should just accept what they are told by Management and the different political parties and politicians, realise that nobody is pushing their own barrow here, that we're all in it together, and that it's all being done for their own good.
I mean, we ignored advice from a veritable hoard of networking and IT experts when we floated the MTM model, we selectively ignored what's happening in broadband networks overseas, and we've pushed our hamstrung broadband network for basically political reasons ... but look how well that has worked out.
So trust us ... and don't let these so called 'information leaks' and whistleblowers destroy the government's message. 'Good broadband begins now.'
In a world that has largely left it behind.
There have been a few stumbles along the way ... it's recent postage fee increases and service decreases combined to make physically posting stuff less attractive than it already was, and therefore made its post office less relevant and economic, which is the primary selling point of it less-efficient-and-effective-than-any-number-of-other-parcel-delivery-services, and hence a search for relevance in other spheres. (Yeah, that wasn't a particularly smart move, AusPost)
So, they propose a digital e-mail box (and what's wrong with the SMTP/POP/IMAP Internet mail service, I'd like to know), digital signatures (in an already overloaded market), and block-chain based transaction management (see article for critique) as the Next Big Things ... principally, I suspect, because their hoard of overpaid suits isn't too creative or bright, and doesn't really have a handle on what's happening in the digital world running rings around them.
C'mon AusPost ... you can do better than this!
Mmmm ... but ASD or DSD they're still pretty pathetic in the security Sphere.
I had some dealings with them about 20 years back - proposing a secure e-mail system for a government department. They rejected the solution on the basis that it was TOO SECURE. Because they couldn't crack it, it was unsuitable.
I'm guessing the Census system went through the same rigorous security checks.
To Richard's points I'd add:
Trust: If the electorate can't implicitly trust a voting system, then democracy fails - because nobody elected under such a system would have any perceived legitimacy. And eVoting systems that have been introduced (in the US and more particularly Florida), have been riven with rumours of bad coding, deliberately biased coding and outright fraudulent coding ... which have seen them sidelined soon after introduction.
2. Gateways. The eVoting system isn't the only piece of critical infrastructure. You'd also need workable and usable gateways that verify identity (and eGov ... and its various predecessors SERIOUSLY SUCKS - both for purpose and performance, and here in Victoria government IT gateways and infrastructure are laughable).
3. Identity Verification and Validation. We'd also need an acceptable digital signature/identity verification system - which doesn't exist in Australia at the moment.
Bottom line: None of the technical requirements are in place, even if you leave the political acceptability
"I don't really understand why The Reg gets so upset about what are basically minor errors on the part of entertainers. One might dismiss Aly's claims about buffering as a mere rhetorical device (hyperbole, for example), but instead we have to be told he doesn't know what he's talking about, and how he's doing more damage than good to the argument."
Mmmm ... pedantry gone mad. Given the tone of this article if he'd said 'baud' rather than 'bits per second', or 'Internet' rather than 'internet' or 'bite' rather than 'byte' (!!!???) he would have been in for a REAL good-and-proper roasting.
Can't have these journalist types from a non-IT background making minor technical mistakes, can we? I mean, that could lead to anarchy, dogs mating with cats in the streets, the world could end prematurely and pubs might close early.
No ... far better to waste everyone's time picking at nits because there was no story worth writing about when you sat down at the keyboard.
America tends to be very selective about its observanc eof its Constitution and its Amendments. To my my mind the Amercian Constitution is more a 'statement of good intent' rather than a law that's meant to be followed.
It's been more distinguished by its breaches rather than its effect over the years ... especially in times of stress (like during wars, economic downturns and the like - when it is supposed to be there to protect everyone).
Right ... like the paranoid technological troglodytes who currently rule over us would be likely to exhibit even the faintest hint of common sense.
Ideology trumps technology in Brandis World, and he is ably assisted by a legion of politicised,much much worse than average, lawyers who couldn't get a job anywhere else.
The innovation nation my ass.
No, it's correct.
Above $75000 you pay the GST on all your outputs. End of story.
Below $75000 you pay the GST on ALL your inputs ... with no opportunity to claim GST credits and backbill them.
For mine ... the average Uber driver would be better off registered (in a credits sense) - especially when starting out - as he could claim back GST credits on the car, repairs to same, fuel, maintenance and other running costs - reducing his expenses by 10%. As his customers would be responsible for paying the GST, he'd be better off (aside from the need to collect and remit the tax to the ATO).
All the above said, that would introduce a level of accounting complexity that the average driver may not be interested in ... but surely Uber could build this in to their service to the driver.
And in the final conclding paragraphs of the article.
One wonders why the headline wasn't 'Android Fanboys in your office ...", and why the writer didn't lead with the Android vulnerabilities.
I have Android and Apple devices in my home, and the ones I'm REALLY worried about, security wise, are the Android ones.
At the moment the government would probably like to shut down all forms of social media ... because they've been getting hammered there for so many embarrassing missteps, faux pas and incidents of downright incompetence of late that they've finally realised that just having the Murdoch Press on their side is not enough to insulate them from the furnace of public indignation.
They'd love to shut down Twitter, FaceBook, Digg and any number of platforms. To hammer Google and especially You Tube for all those nasty parodies and endlessly repeated news items that so distress them.
Can they do it? Not in this universe. But that won't stop them from trying ... obviously on 'national security' grounds.
Mmmmm .... I trusted the old independent unfunded CERT for its timely reports and responses. Then the government bought in AusCERT, which was a totally different proposition ... a mob of government bureaucrats and amateur IT security wannabe's ... that morphed into the ACSC - which as far as I can see has done nothing to justify its humungous and ever-increasing budget in all the time it has been in place.
Still, it's run by the Australian government - so it must be 'world's best practice' ... right?
Is it just me, or would they have been better off simply giving the old CERT 25-50% of the budget the ACSC attracts - and relying on an independent body that actually worked and knew what they were doing?
Australian IT companies and associations pretty much tend to be big-time wimps when the government rumbles over them.
Telstra rolls over to protect its various sweetheart deals and monopolist concessions. Ditto Optus. Both are pretty much just rent seekers seeking to make the most out of their long obsolete capital, whilst hoping to become dominant 'partners' at the NBN pot. The other telcos are too small potatoes to challenge a kindergarten and meekly do whatever they are told.
But iiNet has a record of bucking the system and refusing to buckle to protect third parties, the government or whoever. I think they do that to protect their own interests as much as their clients/consumers ... and besides publicity wise it really looks good with the general public - but they do buck the trend rather often.
Of the overseas IT firms ... they pretty much just want to lay low and sell product. So, you won't see them sticking their necks out for anyone but themselves. And at the moment, they just want the tax focus to go away ... so they're laying even lower.
And the industry and IT professional associations: They seem to confuse a 'seat at the table', holding meetings with low level bureaucratic functionaries, and sometimes shaking hands with a MINISTER as relevant, when they are actually being royally ignored by a government going about its business relatively untroubled by infotech, or science, or pretty well anybody who actually knows something about anything.
The only 'stakeholders' this government recognizes are those who go into meetings with them agreeing, wholly and completely, with the government's position ... so what we've got are a plethora of technologically inclined 'Yes Men' - who are no use to anybody.
If the LNP wanted to promote Internet secrecy and ever more secure VPN usage, they probably couldn't have adopted a better way to do it.
Now every man and his dog will be out there checking out VPN software (which costs between $50 and $100 per annum to use), and tunneling their internet traffic in hyper-encrypted form through to overseas services, the useful metadata (from the packet headers) that the Australian intelligence services were planning on getting a look at - will disappear - and all the LNP's security initiatives will be badly affected.
To my mind, Malcolm, George and the LNP probably deserve an award from the EFF (let's call it the Snowden Award) for promoting the use of heavy encryption, data tunneling and the cause of Internet privacy above and beyond the call of duty. (Of course, their intelligence mavens won't be so happy - but that's their problem.)
The money outlaid for old obsolete infrastructure, and the value placed on same, seem exorbitant.
When is someone gonna point out the bleeding obvious? That is ...
<<<<We could have gotten a full fibre to the premises network for less than we are paying for this MTM turkey. >>>>
Perhaps a vast number of our current LNP politicians, looking down the barrel at a one term government, are simply feathering their own nests for retirement ... and ever so lucrative Telstra and NBN directorships? That's the ONLY reason I can think of for persisting with this farce.
Honestly, I would really prefer that they called a halt to the whole thing, saved the money and used it to fill in their numerous self inflicted Budget holes (if Tony doesn't blow another $12 billion on more fighter planes that don't fly, or Hockey doesn't give the Reserve Bank another $10 billion or so to play with) ... and left the project for the future to take care of.
When it can be done properly, and will become an asset for the nation.
Because at the moment - it has all the hallmarks of an economic, ideological and technical debacle.
And I'd put serious money on both cards being offered as options for the new iMacs that Apple is expected to release 'real soon now' ... and they do have 2500 dpi screens.
With 80% of the power of their big brother's at about 33% of the power cost Apple's gotta be looking at putting these puppies in their iMacs.
... Who else would you want to overseas your products' security.
One's got you covered in the likely even that your product fails basic security, and you get sued, and the other provides enterprise product that will get you sued ... thus increasing the need for the lawyers.
As for the rest of the product line-up - hey, don't sweat it. Low end users and customers don't have the legal budgets of enterprise clients.
... It all makes a kind of warped sense.
360,000 lines of Visual Basic is what's being reported.
Visual Basic? Brilliant for its scalability, ease of maintenance, security, currency and large systems capabilities. For the code necessary to determine out electoral voting, elect our Senate and safeguard our democracy?
The AEC are amateurs, and I wouldn't trust them to code my bowel movements ... let alone a system for counting votes. And if you don't trust the electoral process, you don't trust the governments elected using that process, and it all starts to fall to pieces.
... We would sink into anarchy.
The AEC seems to forget that. You'd think, after the recent WA debacle, that it would be uppermost on their collective minds ... but the AEC seems to think that 'it's all OK now, the electorate trusts us, the politicians trusts us ... she's apples.'
Wrong. Trust is something you build and reinforce constantly.
And I'd like you to imagine what happened in Republican governed Florida to Al Gore, and in subsequent elections in the same state, when their electronic voting machines proved to be less than fair and correct in registering the results and calculating the vote.
Now imagine that happened to the AEC ... following on the disasters that have occurred with the manual system in a number of electorates of late. And if public trust in the AEC evaporates, so does trust in the election results ... and I'll leave you to imagine what that could do in the increasingly fractious and politically divided country that Australia has become over the last 10 years.
The smart move by the AEC would be to release the code for review ... the stupid move would be to withhold it. Because if they did, and if mistakes and errors, or, even worse bias and corrupted process, were subsequently proved or eve just suspected in the electronic electoral process ... I doubt the AEC would survive.
You gotta love this guy. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
It benefits 'us', so its OK to use it wholesale against 'them'.
And if 'them' includes his own citizens ... that's OK. As long as his 'us' (by which I assume he means his party, other politicians, and their backers) isn't spied upon ... everything is hunky dory.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019