Re: A slight ambiguity
That's the wrong side of Australia for coconuts, isn't it? Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
863 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Nov 2007
This is a government that has tried and tried to break into encrypted comms and been defeated by lawyers and mathematical realities.
They're now making mandatory an app- that is, one you can't uninstall or restrict because it wants too many permissions.
End-to-End Encryption doesn't matter if they're able to read over your shoulder. VPN use becomes really easy to identify if you have an aGPS lock on the device in London and the data's coming from Berlin, and any encryption keys can potentially be pulled from memory. This holds your banking information, your social media accounts, your contacts on every platform.
And while just needing one for a new job means it can be installed on an old phone, turned off, and locked in a steel drawer it will quickly become necessary in everyday life too.
This is how liberty dies. To thunderous objections- all of which are brushed aside by ministers saying 'if you object you are supporting paedos and tax dodgers'.
"It has kpr0n blocks but not pr0n blocks"
No.
Any UK residential ISP I'm aware of has a default-on Adult Content filter. This means any device connected to your home router already blocks adult content.
The choice to allow this onto your home network is, appropriately, explicit.
No-one saw this coming. This absolutely wasn't an utterly transparent way to introduce the VPN ban they wanted.
Next prediction:
After the VPN ban some other party will wind back the controls on porn, quoting something about democracy and the like... but will keep the VPN-busting policy.
Look for when the friends of MPs and senior civil servants sell their shares in Yoti and the like, it'll be just after that.
Wouldn't this be expected?
Most of the named eyewitnesses are probably members of the secret service, police, etc they'll be at higher risk of death-in-the-line-of-duty and under more strain. And the stress of seeing the President shot when they were supposed to be protecting him, the constant barrage of conspiracy talk for decades over somewhere they were present for- that can't be good for ones' health. We should expect this group to have a higher-than-average death rate.
Plus Dallas was rich in 1963 meaning the death rate can be expected to be lower than the national average.
So even if the security people were dying at the US average for 1963 (9.6 deaths per 1000 people) that would seem quite significantly higher than the inhabitants of Dallas. Which would be prime conspiracy-theorist fodder.
I wonder if that's where this came from. I'm really interested to see what your citation reveals now.
My first time on Jury Duty showed me that a lot of people think like this.
"You could tell he was guilty as he walked in"
"Why would he be in front of the judge if he's innocent?"
"[The defence] is just needlessly poking holes"
Turns out he did do it- there was a heap of evidence in the last two days. But this guy was being convicted the moment he walked through the door.
"Crawler operators ignore the instructions in robots.txt files, or work around CAPTCHAs and web server settings"
Surely this settles the case of if AI training crawlers are legal? If there is a robots.txt file and they ignored it, that's unauthorised use. Regardless of if a human would see it or not (which seems to be a common defence), this has been a recognised standard for machine access for decades.
In practice this won't settle it- lawyers still need years worth of work and corporations need to spend time harvesting investors' money- but in an ideal world shouldn't this be a pretty easy judgement?
Are you honestly suggesting that in 1791 the United States had no experience with State surveillance? Or by governments overstepping their power?
Principles don't change based on technology.
Murder is still murder, whether by knife, musket, or phased plasma rifle in the 40w range. Surveillance is surveillance, whether by steaming open an envelope or by installing beam-splitters in a telephone exchange.
When the government becomes more capable of breaching long-established rights more effectively the correct reaction is not to let them do it.
"If you've done nothing wrong"
A few short decades ago we chemically castrated a bunch of men- including at least one proper war hero- because they were a bit keen on other, legal-aged men who shared their preferences.
After 9/11 we had whole religions tarred with the brush of being terrorists. Or people who looked like they might be members of that religion.
Jean-Charles de Menezes was an innocent electrician who had absolutely nothing to fear until he was misidentified and shot to death by police- in one of the most tightly surveiled parts of the most tightly surveiled cities in the world.
Even those with nothing to hide, or should have nothing to hide, definitely have plenty to fear.
Three? Not at all. They should have had four! No, they should have had SIXTY.
Two is fine. Nothing should get past the one O-ring. Choose the right O-ring and use it within spec and it'll generally be fine, with the second being a backup in case it isn't. The problem comes when you compromise both simultaneously- three O-rings wouldn't have helped if they were all too cold (as with this and Challenger).
Germany are part of NATO. And issued an arrest warrant for someone suspected of sabotage.
This isn't Whataboutism, it's a total logical disconnect. "NATO is saying subsea infrastructure is critical, even while they themselves arrest people who attack it? What hypocrisy!"
Okay, so we've got a point of failure here. Or do we?
Maybe we could try age-restricting PAYG SIMs, or making them only able to be topped up online or by credit card. But if, rather than just talking to their parents, a kid has gone to that length to get round your content restrictions, they're going to succeed.
And when all the websites are locked down, when all the devices are hobbled, when every transaction is logged, when you've finally made the Internet safe for children... then, the kids will start sharing photos on USB sticks and this whole puritanical cycle will start again with removable storage.
Oh, wait, schoolkids were sharing porn on removable drives back when the year started with a 1. So this legislation's already been out of date for a quarter century.
That's probably the most important point. If someone pays for the Internet access, they should be in control of it and they should have responsibility to secure it. If I want to stop my kids looking at something, it's up to me to stop them. Not Kier Starmer, not whoever these other muppets are, me. I'm their parent, the responsibility is on me.
If I don't know how to protect them, it's my responsibility to find out, not to have everyone else locked out.
Online Safety is not improved by teaching people from an early age to stick their credit card details into sites as readily as they click 'accept all cookies'. Children are not protected by stopping them being able to have conversations with their parents- and adding barriers like this is exactly what this will achieve.
The person with the contract with the ISP should be the one whose age is checked, and who then bears responsibility for what's done by any others they allow to use their connection.
It doesn't need to be.
The group deploying it should be. And they should be held accountable if it errs.
If an Apple AI tells a user an all-fruit diet fights cancer, or a Tesla AI is in charge of a vehicle that crashes, Apple or Tesla's senior executives should be legally responsible as they okayed its deployment.
If an individual utilises it, it should be their legal responsibility.
Nothing else will work. The first jailed C-Suite will quickly ensure that AI is used responsibly by everyone else while not stifling legitimate development.
Ah, but remember Ducks float. And therefore are made of wood, and are therefore witches. Which have gnarled, twisty features.
So twistyness alone cannot determine if something is a duck or not, because the science above says that Witches are Ducks, and witches are twisty.
This is a piece of work intended to show the student's understanding and/or creative abilities. Their own.
A calculator stops me needing to look up trig tables. It'll do a multiplication for me. It doesn't tell me the method with which to solve the problem, but an AI would. This is a pretty well established line, with graphing calculators being banned because they commonly let students lean on pre-made calculators or equation re-arranging or the like.
Your mum correcting your German homework is absolutely a cheat. The work you're turning in isn't an accurate reflection of your understanding. But if you ask her what the correct spelling is, that's making use of resources available to you. With the second example you recognise a shortcoming and fix it- it's a learning experience.
Spelling and Grammar checkers are absolutely a cheat in language work, because the work submitted isn't based on your understanding. Grammarly is even more of a cheat on language work. On non-language-work a different standard can be applied- spell-checking a Chemistry paper could be okay, because what's being assessed is the student's understanding of Chemistry rather than English.
In sports, if I turned up to a Shot-put with a cannon then claimed a win because mine went further I'd be considered a cheat, and for exactly the same reason- it's not me competing, it's Big Bertha. But if I delivered a Physics paper by cannon, it wouldn't invalidate the Physics paper because that's not evaluated based on how far you threw it. Though it would probably raise a few eyebrows.
Schools (and universities etc) should examine the students and their abilities.
You're missing the point.
This should not have happened. CrowdStrike deliberately broke the safeguards MS had put in place to avoid this. They had a signed, thoroughly tested, Kernel-mode driver... that then ran unsigned, in this case untested, code. And didn't test that to make sure it rejected invalid data.
Regardless of the safeguards you put in place, someone who bypasses those safeguards can still screw up a system.
It's like the old saying- if you make things idiot-proof the Universe just makes a better idiot.
The Mirai has a range record of 845 miles on a single 6kg fill-up. The range record is at a low speed, but it's just as valid as the tests that give Teslas their best range figures. In normal use they're more than competitive with ICE and BEV vehicles.
That needs a filling time roughly about the same as an ICE car. And there are a few filling stations close to my house- though admittedly we're in an area that's more accepting of the technology than most.
Hydrogen powers some local cars, local busses, and local refuse trucks. The busses and trucks didn't need special weight-limit increases as their BEV equivalents did.
Anyone who thinks it can't be done, and can't be done practically, you're years behind the times. They're here, in the real world, in multiple classes of vehicle, commercially available.
The 13% of energy that's thrown away doesn't matter to its use as a fuel for vehicles. What matters is how much usable energy can be extracted from it by that vehicle for a given weight and/or volume of fuel, storage, and energy-extraction equipment.
The liquid hydrogen you referred to is around an order of magnitude more energy dense than the best lithium batteries. And can be burned or put through a fuel cell to extract power. That makes it a VERY good fuel.
He was told if he did something, he'd get a bonus.
He did the thing.
If there's any way he didn't do the thing, or did the thing in a way that was illegal, deny him it. Really go digging for things.
If there was a conflict, like he set the task and it was trivial (e.g. Musk himself set the terms as $50Bn if the stock price rises $0.000001 while no-one else was present), then investigate that.
But if he legitimately met the terms of the agreement, pay the man.
"If you go too far down a path where it's very hard to obtain data to train models, then all of a sudden, the ability to do so will only be the preserve of very large companies."
What they're saying here is that this data has value, they can see the value of it. So there's something there worth protecting.
I don't even need a proof, they can leave the implementation to someone else. I just want them to provide a concept of how they think it could possibly work that encryption is end-to-end secure unless a judge decides it isn't.
As far as I can tell, if we had some sort of magic gate that only allowed the good guys through, we'd have no worries about this sort of thing anyway.
MW IS NOT A UNIT OF ENERGY STORAGE.
If this is 2MW for 30 seconds it's not much use. If it's 2MWh then it's barely worth doing compared to battery storage.
Give us a value in MWh or Joules. Barrels of Oil Equivalent. Or reword it to it reducing a maximum of 2MW of power.
Come on, Register, you used to call out other publications for this sort of crap. Be better.
Just because you can't see the need doesn't mean there isn't one.
In MS Office post-2003, Macros already need their own format that explicitly does contain a macro. So any normal DOCX is, by definition, not macro-enabled. Anything else should be treated with suspicion and can be easily automatically recognised and flagged as a potential attack vector.
This seems like the best solution, covering not just your use-case but also the rest of the world.
It doesn't need to phone home. Just verify itself against a key, or a dongle, or a number scribbled on the installation media. Some unique method of identifying individual installations.
If they'd deliberately and knowingly re-used license keys that would have been a completely different scenario to them copying software that had consensually been de-protected by the owner.