Posts by Death_Ninja 194 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
Interesting.... a $200 bribe to have another go at killing off resale of pre-owned games.
It's got to be that and I suspect it might well achieve that.
We all know that the game companies hate the second hand market and MS tried this before with the XBONE, only backing down after howls of rage.
I guess offering both with and without is their next strategy.
Its very good but as you say the price tag exceeds the ROI value - its genuinely eye watering.
I'm fairly sure that some substantial repricing would mean better revenues overall - I've yet to find anyone who objected to it other than on the feeling they were being gouged.
I suspect MS Analytics is about to lay waste to Splunk too - its not as good, but the price is somewhat more acceptable.
The US's anti-satellite test mission is hardly secret - 13 September 1985.
Maj. Wilbert D. "Doug" Pearson is the only fighter pilot to date to have chalked up a kill in space so far.
I heard someone say the other day though that both the Russians and the Chinese are stepping up these space warfare projects because.... Trump created Space Force... announcing to the world that the USA is officially taking war into space.
And PS the 1967 Outer Space Treaty doesn't prohibit conventional weapons in space, only "weapons of mass destruction" and you can't turn the moon or any other celestial body into a battle station (are you listening Darth?)
S400 out-ranges Brimstone by just how much...I'll clue you in.... somewhere between 5 and 10 times.
S500 is next, even more capable (S400 already effectively being the most capable SAM platform in production). At 600km range they are probably capable of even taking down standoff assets like AWACS or refuelling aircraft.
And of course coming from the heritage their owners come from, its just part of a very complex IADS and not a standalone defence system.
Well I guess if you are just talking about missile carriers it does make sense and probably that is not too hard to achieve.
Cheap, unmanned missile carriers capable of high speeds carrying upwards of 6 BVR missiles, you might achieve better than a 1:1 kill ratio (which is assumed in a mass meeting of opponents both equipped with BVR weapons)
If you look at this chart, you'll see that 3 missiles per target probably ensures a kill:
https://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Survivability-vs-Salvo-Size.png
I guess in a protracted war between two tier one players scenario the drone would enable you to win the attrition simply by being quicker to make than a pilot is to train.
And if you are just talking about being able to assemble a wave of them and steer them towards the incoming enemy, I can't actually see why nobody has done this yet?
How is this going to work though?
An actual close in dogfight? Are those even a thing any more? I appreciate the reason for Top Gun school was to relearn dogfighting when the USAF discovered guided missiles weren't very capable in Vietnam, but a log old amount of time has gone by since then.
If the two aircraft are going to lob beyond visual range missiles at each other its not so much a test of the pilot/AI but one of the missile manufacturer surely?
If both platforms are equipped with the same countermeasures (both being US platforms) that we can assume are effective against the stuff they know about (ie their own) then this too skews the result.
Maybe then the drone is really good at proper dogfighting gun combat?
Which leaves them with what result? The thing is useful assuming the Russian/Chinese radar, missiles and counter measures aren't better/unknown vs US made ones. Might have been true at one point, but suspect that's a big old bit of hubris today.
I've heard people say exactly the same thing about Maersk too.
But I'm sure every company has a period during which they were considered to be a good employer with a caring sharing culture.... but those left with that these days are no doubt continually looking at their competitors and arguing that nasty and vicious produces more profits.
The nasty vicious world of business today is copied behaviour from witnessing others profit it from it and everyone is just a board member retirement away from the wolves moving in to their employer.
Talk is cheap, but on the other hand, the previous regime didn't even talk - that's how s0dding miserable and despotic they were. Not even at the beginning.
I've seen "Sal" already engage with employees in the areas that he has talked about selling and listen to them.
This is unheard of under Mikey...
There is a glimmer of hope...
Its a strategy some pursue, but buying a competitor three times your market cap only to trash it?
The pressure from Wall Street would break CEO after CEO thats for sure - the shares would surge on the merger and then expect to see the share price go up, not for you to basically dismantle it and throw it in the skip.
You'd be hard pushed to show that the drop in value was just due to merger turmoil while you seek "synergies" if you actually were simply removing a brand from the market - at that point, your own brand.
TBH the idea of vehicle weight being a major factor is something I've long wondered why nothing has been done about in the UK.
It goes without saying that the more the weight, the more the energy needed to propel it, therefore the more the pollution.
Why don't we simply set a 1 tonne limit for personal vehicles and everything else is commercial?
Why does a 2019 Vauxhall Astra weigh ~1.8 tonnes? The 1990's version weighed 900kg.
And that's only an Astra - not some monster peasant crusher 4x4.
There are a number of different ideas they are floating at the moment, but what is definitely true is that the current regime of subsidy on purchase, zero road tax and standard electricity prices will not remain in the coming years.
All of these things will be swept away "when the EV just becomes 'the car'" (as the government propaganda is telling us).
I'd guess we'll see these measures in place as soon as EV's reach 20% of the vehicles on the road - not too far away I'd guess.
Some of the different options being considered are outlined here:
https://www.current-news.co.uk/blogs/the-tax-man-cometh-how-might-the-government-solve-the-riddle-of-ev-taxation
The next thing after tailpipe emissions btw is particle emissions from tyres and brakes. Expect to see low pollution zones where electric vehicles are given a pollution rating and you pay a pollution charge to drive a 4.5 tonne electric peasant crusher vs a Renault Zoe. Probably also a significant scrappage charge on EOL battery packs.
One thing is for sure though - all those people that imagine they are escaping the endless tax war on motorists by buying an EV are wrong.
I'll tell you what L3/L4/L5 do - exactly what they are told by L1 and not a single extra thing.
In a properly functioning company with devolved powers to drive the various divisions along, these people are the key to success.
In DXC there is only one person allowed to make decisions.
Its this absolute dictatorship that is the root of all of DXC's problems - and I'm not using the word "dictatorship" just to be nasty about Mikey, its the actual case of that is how the company works.
Others won't believe me, but trust me, that is why its so chaotic and fails so hard - just like CSC did when Mikey took charge of that.
So yes, I agree that L3/L4/L5 have no purpose. Automation could replace them - an inbox rule in Exchange server.
"Are they field testing it against Russian or Chinese military exercises though?"
I'd say very likely but "they" aren't releasing press statements about it and the Russians and Chinese won't be talking about it either.... so its impossible to say.
TBH testing jamming by jamming your potential opponents during peacetime is counter-productive. All you are doing is showing your hand and giving them a chance to measure your systems and develop counter-measures.
I'm with you on that...
Security perhaps more so than other domains, but really the purpose of those "qualifications" is more about getting another job than being able to do the one that you already have.
CISSP does suck though. Its hardly a true gauge of anything in the same way as my O level in Physics doesn't in itself suggest that I could be employed as a rocket scientist for NASA...
LockerGoga is not a worm.
Norsk was hit by someone sh1t bombing their systems with it - possibly using AD logon scripts and/or their own patching system.
Unlikely to be mass emailing, but they were targeted by someone...
So its either an inside job or network penetration - both possible!
But the document will also tell you that you can't see the content unless you click "enable macros"...
Now obviously that would be a big red flag to switched on guys and gals, but you'd be surprised how many will accept the offered choice when they can't see what it is they are getting...
There's another problem facing the military:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14944256/patriot-missile-shot-down-consumer-drone-us-military
As the drones become cheaper, chucking highly advanced (aka "expensive") weapons at them as a counter measure is increasingly problematic. The price of the anti-aircraft weapons needs to come down or that swarm of $200 drones is going to bankrupt you and take you out of the war.
So everyone is rushing to create gun based systems to deal with the threat.
You are correct... I suppose the difference comes in so far as a "drone" deploys a weapon and (subject to enemy return of fire) comes back to rearm. A missile does deploy a weapon (its warhead) but is destroyed in the process.
In terms of the morality question, its pretty much the same, you unleash something which will seek and destroy the enemy within a set of parameters (usually a relatively small "target area" for missiles/torpedoes). I guess though the key is that a "drone" is probably seeking people in an area with a lot of potential collateral damage rather than a ship or aircraft in a 100% military target area, although those can go wrong in the same way (eg hitting an airliner not a warplane in the same area).
Its this piece where the computers are identifying legitimate targets in an area with plenty of illegitimate ones that is making this a bigger question.
@Jim-234
I think you make a good point here - eliminating anonymity would obviously reduce shite postings, but equally cause the "I once said that" problems that can cause issue - particularly for the youth who like all youth from all time say and do very silly things they later regret.
I am lucky in that being older, my youthful thoughts and deeds are not available to my employer to review now I am my forties.
It doesn't need to have been something totally outrageous and stupid to later tar you for life.
Look at politicians and other public figures. Their words have always been quotable and discoverable and they suffer from the backlash of history regularly and they are usually careful what they say. Average Joe doesn't operate in that world.
No idea about foreign jurisdictions, but under UK publishing law the publisher was always responsible for the content of the published article.
Back in those days BBS and forums were considered publication.
In the UK written work promoting terrorism, racism, sex with minors/animals, crime, liable/slander etc aren't allowed even under "free speech". Other countries may have different views on the matter.
Plenty of sysops/admins back in the day had their systems shut down because of it and you used to have to actively censor content.
Today, if you have a website with user comments, you can be in the same place - I'm sure even El Reg protect their backsides against that too.
I never understood how FB and friends got away with it.
In the days of BBS's the sysop was liable for the content. In the later days of forums, the forum owner was liable for the content.
There were plenty of system owners who got in serious trouble for failing to moderate the content created by their users.
I don't get how Facebook or Twitter etc are not liable for the content on their systems. Claiming to be an ISP doesn't cut it - ISP is someone who provides network connectivity, not computer systems to write drivel on.
Oh wow, they have a bug list.
I'll bet you work for the vendor who doesn't disclose their bugs.
I could tell you how to mitigate nearly all of those Palo bugs before they are even published but sounds like you don't need to know anyway because your company are writing their own firewalls.
You can break through a Palo firewall? Really....
I could argue all day about the pros and cons of the different firewall vendors but being able to break through ANY of them is some sort of movie based nonsense.
If anyone is achieving access into a network beyond a palo firewall then its because someone has configured the rule base to allow it.
Given their appalling track record in any software product, you'd have to be a stupid customer to buy this.
I can't count the number of amazing promises Cisco have rolled out over the last 25 years and every single one was a bug filled, feature lacking pile of unfinished dross that never ever works even after years of "improvement".
So unless you are seeking the 8th layer of hell, I'd suggest giving this a wide old berth...
(their routing and switching hardware products are generally fine though...)
....I thought he actually told us that the security services were fully capable of subverting most of the common forms of messaging platforms anyway... by virtue of leaning on the providers themselves and installing taps on the unencrypted data centre connections beyond the transport security... Actually, not just able but actually doing this for some time.
Oh hang on, thats GCHQ and the NSA, not the NCA, local plod or my borough council, who obviously all have need to spy on me too. Couldn't they just ask to share nicely? Oh hang on, security doesn't like to share.
Various security vendors have already done this sort of thing using both supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms.
There are numerous products out there for some time using it.
In case you hadn't noticed, it hasn't stopped malware yet, because it never will.
Its always offence vs defence and a new defence spawns a new offensive technology. Given both the rewards and the players involved, it always will be an endless war.
I think a combination of things conspired to create what we see today (which is what the article talks about):
1) IT people being both part of a new industry on an upward path, being paid very good money, didn't see that unionised labour was needed. They were the rich, the untouchable and unions were kinda seen after the 1980's as protectors of legacy and dying industries. Coupled with UK law attempting to blot out union power, why would you join a union?
2) Moving 30 years forward, the IT bubble has definitely burst. Sure, every business needs IT but the massive deployment of IT is over. Its run and maintain by and large. The days of endless new leaps forward in tech are done, dusted and gone. Unless we see something new and big... I think it will be new but not big.
3) Combining #2 with the crash in 2008 (which technically we haven't actually recovered from), we now live in a world where there isn't real growth anywhere. Big business (IT and others) moved to cost reduction as their only vehicle for growth. Its false growth of course, particularly in the case of IBM et all because the only true value they have are their technical skills in deploying complex IT solutions for customers. The axe swings not to remove excess wastage but actually to remove vital organs. The CEO gets paid huge rewards for his/her carnage and the impact won't be felt in the limited number of years of their employment. Sadly, their replacement won't have another game plan and just looks to cut even harder.
This possibly isn't felt in smaller operations, but certainly the big names in IT services (IBM, HP, DXC, Accenture) are slowly spiralling into the ground.
Maybe the future is smaller, more dynamic niche companies.
None of this helps the generation who built what we know today - their future (my future) is outside of IT it seems. Which is a shame, as we built this digital world. I'll see you all with an orange apron at B&Q.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
