Surely it would be 'safer' to have no such provision.
Then any attempt to infiltrate the network would require the security services to ask ALL the members, something they are unlikely to want to do.
2289 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jul 2009
"No matter how autonomous and self-learning they become they do not attain the characteristics of a living human being. Robots will not enjoy the same legal physical personality."
That's remarkably prescient of her. I wonder how she expects to distinguish them ? I can barely distinguish most M(E)Ps from robots already, based on their ability at creative thought..
It might be that she expects to discriminate on appearance, ethnicity or lifestyle. Which would be odd, since I thought we were trying to grow out of all that.
It's a problem of insecure managers.
Some people like to have their staff workling all around them - even though that costs more and is less efficient - because the buzz of activity makes them feel something is happening and they're at the heart of it.
It doesn't matter to them that anyone with a job that requires some concentration is working at a tiny fraction of their potential.
What stops you commissioning someone to write the extensions you need ? It would probably cost a lot less than an Adobe license. The critical thing thing about open source software is not that it's (usually) free, but that you, or your contractor, can extend it. They don't have to write from scratch.
I don't think we care that we can't identify someone we've never met before.
All we normally want to do is identify that it's the same person that set up the account, or the same person that a bank knows about, or the same person that lives at a certain address. Who that person actually is can't ever be proven : what matters is that the second and subsequent contacts match the first.
A password (retained secret) is fine for this, as are other tokens such as certificates. In some cases, that certificate needs to be verified by another party such as a bank.
Or maybe remembering a bunch of things that are intentionally hard to guess just isn't a very good way for humans to authenticate themselves ?
It's often a good idea to match the solution to the problem : if you need to do a thing often, choose something that you're good at.
What are humans good at remembering? Probably something involving patterns. Shapes, music, phrases. The problem there is that to enter a reasonably complex pattern, you need an interface that's good at it. Maybe that's easier to solve than trying to make your passwords rememberable but obscure.
"like all political threads, this one has immediately descended into "yah boo sucks all your side are idiots/fools/deluded/morons/[delete"
That's hardly surprising. Both sides in a political match are pretty well always composed of idiots/fools/deluded/morons. If they weren't, they'd be doing something constructive instead, wouldn't they ?
The comments on this post are the most incoherent, unreasoned, poorly explained twaddle I have read on the Reg for years. It's like YouTube.
If you've got something to say, at least give it some context and explain your arguments. Don't assume everyone here has taken any significant interest in the subject. For most of us, this social media backbiting is completely off the radar : we've heard there's been an argument that shows up some men with excessively loud mouths and that's it.
Cc, Bcc and Reply All all have legitimate uses for small groups of people.
The problem is having a very large list that can be added to them : CCs should be filled in manually, to include a handful of interested people. But some misbegotten mail software (yes, Outlook, I'm talking about you) allows the use of huge files of recipients instead as some sort of idiot mailing list.
The correct way to set these large lists up is with group names expanded by a mailserver, and to restrict use of those names to people who have a clue.
I hooe they don't adopt USB-C. It's a typical PC bodge with far too many contacts and the crudest possible way to make it insertable either way up. It does bring a bit to the PC's USB3 (more power, more speed) but it's a crap replacement for lightning.
He's a patriot ? What sort ?
- Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (Samuel Johnson)
- Patriotism is a maggot in their heads (Thoreau)
- Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious (Wilde)
- Patriotism is "the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers (Tolstoy)
From a story in the Reg's related list :
"Additionally, Hourclé warns of the effect the policy may have on those without computers at home, as many public institutions which offer internet access are mandated to filter it by state or local laws and may block HTTPS entirely."
So will we have the situation where you can't use web access in a public library to connect to a government website ?
Denying access to contacts isn't very useful for these communication apps. What's needed is bunkered contacts - seperate lists for skype, whatsapp, emil, phone etc. This is directly contradictory to what those app authors (wanting to mine networking information) want and counterintuitive to the average user, who thinks he wants all his contacts together.
But I don't want a popup that asks me if I want to contact the person through SMS or skype. Nor do I want the app owners to spam my contacts list like LinkedIn. I'm quite happy to choose the communication medium first and the contact second.
"I don't have to put up with shit I don't want, but have to have because the cunts that put it on have used secret or hidden tricks to make sure their crap never goes away, even if I say I don't want it."
I used to think that, but then there was systemd.
Because anything manufactured by industry is certain to be built, tested and operating according to all the rules ?
And if the implementation is kept secret, how exactly could you be sure of that ?
Didn't work for emissions. Why should it work for anything else ?
I doubt it. Most current protocols have severe limits on propagation times intended to try to reduce the already over-long timeouts when it breaks. It's likely that a path like that (2-3 seconds) is too slow even if you have enough signal (you might have parabolics at both ends but the moon is the opposite of a parabola and spreads the signal out).