"What about the gamers, especially the high-enders?"
Their problem. For the rest of the world, it's getting work done that matters. Legacy S/W like Office is the problem.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Depends on your purpose. LibreOffice isn't fit for purpose for delivering my coursework, because LibreOffice docs don't render the same on my examiner's copy of Word."
On the save dialog do you see a drop-down box labelled Filetype? Click the down arrow. Select your examiner's version of Word.
Alternatively, you really need an examiner who values content over appearance.
"Y2K could have been a big problem except for the years of effort that went into rewriting and testing a whole bunch of code all over the world."
Perhaps one outcome of this would be a few man-years of effort in trimming bloat to mitigate the performance loss in mitigating meltdown.
"Before setting laws for the general public, the government should encrypt all government owned devices with security that has a back door only they can access."
No. They should be prepared to publish their own online credentials to their bank accounts, online shopping or other services because that's what, in effect, they're expecting of the rest of us. If they're not prepared to do that they can shut up. If they don't see the problem they can find out - and then shut up.
"Governments are quite capable of keeping secrets if they want to."
They have a problem with greed. If you look at the list of "government" bodies who crop up in every iteration of RIP/DRIP etc. can you realistically believe that that isn't a sieve?
Similarly, there's a fairly regular stream of news reports of disciplinary action or prosecution for wrongful access to the PNC, usually people checking on their ex or their child's latest boy/girl friend.
"If they know, and like Amber R, getting rather pissed at the pitying looks from technical people over the insistent demands for the impossible, why continue?"
It doesn't matter that they're repeatedly told it's not possible. They don't believe that. They've reached positions of power (or what they think to be power) and know that they can command whatever they want because they have power.
They should have paid more attention to Shakespeare at school: "'I can call spirits from the vasty deep', ''Why, so can I, or so can any man;/But will they come when you do call for them?'"
I'm in favour of 2). There's nothing remarkable about govt. IT projects that fail to deliver. The politicians continue to believe that they're going to succeed and it keeps them happy because they're Doing Something. The sooner they head of in that direction the better. They'll stop bleating, someone will get dosh that would inevitably be spent on something worthless and the rest of us would get a break from this endless whining. I might even consider coming out of retirement to work on it; I'm not a cryptographer but I could fail at it as successfully and expensively as someone who is.
"And make sure the contract deliverables are exactly those things : not an actual working application."
You're too pessimistic. I'm sure we can all think of big projects which consume money without producing anything that remotely resembles a working application. A work in progress is just fine.
"With sufficient funds, we could subcontract the job to GCHQ and let them get into systems using more conventional, but tried and tested methods, such as social engineering."
That wouldn't work because it's not what the numpties in government want. It's something they have already. What they want is something new and magical that doesn't take any effort to apply. GCHQ know as well as anyone that a load of bollocks that is.
The answer, as ever, lies with Sir Humphrey's explanations to Hacker that seeing money being spent means that everyone's happy because something's being seen to be done. So, just let out a contract to develop this magic with GCHQ, maybe in conjunction with some independent experts, being the arbiters of whether it works without any risks.
That way, with some utterly rudderless guidance from themselves, HMG can persuade themselves that they're setting out to achieve this goal and maybe keep quiet about it - and even quieter about the ultimate failure. For good measure perhaps IDS can be put in charge; he has just the right track record for it.
"The ICO and insolvency service need more powers to not only veto liquidiation of such companies but also to ensure company directors are prevented from phoenixing anything."
ITYF the insolvency service has those powers.
Also, it's about time that directors were tried directly. I'm pretty sure that while a Ltd company limits shareholders risk it doesn't shield against criminal behaviour.
So host it locally, administered
by recent graduates paid $24k PA? by administrators who know their jobs and their colleagues jobs depend on its security.
A business's data is its life-blood. Guard it accordingly. If that means paying an appropriate salary, pay it.
"Times have changed"
You say that as if it's a good thing. Evidence says not.
"To be honest, 1024 x 768 – the iPad's original resolution at launch – would have sufficed for browsing, email, writing, and IM. "
A frequent complaint of commentards is that wide-screen laptops don't cut it. When you actually pin down the cause of the complaint it's nothing to do with the aspect ratio; it's that they're only 1080 vertical resolution. For actual work - and by that I think they mean writing as many other tasks and applications benefit from a wide screen - they want 1600 minimum. So I don't think your contention that 1024 x 768 would find much favour there.
"He said that the biz had balanced false positives with performance to tune the algorithm to be able to detect 94 per cent of Daesh propaganda with a 99.995 per cent accuracy."
Did you ask him what he meant by this? AFAICS if it correctly detects 94% of videos it's 94% accurate. What, then, if anything, is this 99.995% figure? Unless he has a sensible explanation for this then I wouldn't trust any figure he provides. It's simply marketing gobbledgook and deserves to be treated an the same way as any other garbage spewed by marketing mouthpieces.
"Skipping bail does not excuse you from going to jail for skipping bail just because the original offence that you've been placed on bail for has gone away."
Which, with all appropriate detail, is what the court said. It's amazing how many commentards, mostly anon (is that you, Julian) fail to grasp that.
"I think they'll probably go for the maximum"
If he was arrested, charged and pleaded guilty he'd be unlikely to get the maximum. I still think there's scope for a bit of negotiation, "come out, surrender to bail, plead guilty and we'll ask for a suspended sentence if you give an undertaking to leave the country forthwith". And heigh, ho, off to a new life in his new country, Ecuador. They made him a citizen didn't they? Could they revoke that the moment he's out of the door?
What does that actually mean? Either it detects something as what it's looking for or it doesn't. If it detects 94% than that's a meaningful figure. But what does "with 99.99f% accuracy" mean? Unless it's a means of saying it has 0.005% false positives - which they could say more explicitly - I can't see that it has any meaning at all. I would instinctively distrust anyone who produces a statement like that. OTOH I suppose there might have been something meaningful that went into the Rudd "I don't really understand it but it went something like this" regurgitation mill.
I wish she and Davis would swap jobs. He seems to have his head screwed on right about the Home Office and its doings while she seems sound on Brexit.
I'm suspicious of the wording "court-appointed estate administrators" who might not be working in the interests of the heirs.
I'd expect it to mean that the deceased died intestate. In the absence of a Will appointing executors there'd need to be a court order to appoint them. They should work in the interests of the heirs, indeed, they may be the heirs themselves, but as this seems to be in the US, who knows?
now you spend your whole life saying "no" to the marketing department.
Definitely a good idea. Every business should appoint someone full time to do just this. Come GDPR time, now only a few months away, they're the ones most likely to bring big fines down on your company.
"I'm not really getting this, any explanations would be welcomed."
It depends on what you're doing. If you're busy typing a document, reading mail or commenting on el Reg there'll be a burst of activity every time you hit a key. The waiting time until you hit the next key will be an age in terms of CPU cycles so that you'll not notice that the brief burst of activity was slightly less brief. Even the time spend dragging the next mail or page from the net doesn't disturb the CPU's peace that much. If you look at the processes running on a modern OS you'll see there's other stuff running beside what you think of as your application but they only typically consume a few % or less.
If you're doing something more compute-intensive, especially something that involves a lot of /IO such as streaming lots of data from the network or disk then you might well see a slow-down. The reason for the I/O effect is that it's the OS that handles the I/O and it's the switches between application and OS kernel that are affected by the mitigation. In there's still some slack time on your CPU you might not notice but you're likely to find the fan running faster because more work is being done and more heat generated. If the extra work is sufficient to push you from having some idle CPU time to being 100% all the time then you'll find the system slowing down somewhat. If your CPU was running flat out before the mitigation you'll find it a lot slower because it's now trying to do the original work plus the extra and the only way it can achieve that is by taking longer.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019