Wrong question being asked?
Am I the only one who is sceptical about the idea that the US has started making PU238 again - as noted in the article, a by-product of nuclear weapons - just for the convenicen of NASA?
1117 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2010
Putting aside all the unsurprising other news about the crypto world being rife with scammers, thieves and sundry other crooks, I do find it interesting that this crew seem to have charged with "exporting" to Iran.
So, if there have been trades in entirely digital (supposed) assets, how does that become "exporting"? Are the Americans trying to say that the bits representing those assets have been "exported" to Iran, when the tokens may actually lie anywhere?
Quote: "These safety systems will be implemented by the service owner in their app, SDK or browser-based access,"
OK, so how long would it take for the scumbags to start using some other "service" then?
As usual with these things, it's only designed to catch the honest crooks.
Although I have to assume that NASA do actually know what they're doing, 40KW seems low to me. My (admittedly energy-intensive) household runs at 2-3KW, so 15-20 times my earthbound requirements?
I suppose it will depend on how big the base is, where it is, what experiments are going to be run, what the life support/reprocessing/cracking requirements are etc etc.
However, if it was me planning to put a reactor on the moon, I'd be saying "Fuck it, let's just send the biggest sucker we can lift".
81% of these "business leaders" think that quantum computing is going to disrupt their business within 7 years? How?
It would be nice to know what businesses these "leaders" represent and why they think this will affect their particular businesses. i would also like to know why they think quantum computing will disrupt their businesses any more than advances in classical computing.
I can understand this being applicable to, say high-frequency trading, but even then you have other constraints, such as your comms speed. Meteorological forecasting, yes. Perhaps flow analysis, for F1 cars say, but seriously: build a model and stick it in a wind tunnel. Plus QC may not really offer any advantage to this analysis anyway.
For me, this is just another example of how little "business leaders" know about technology - and every large company is an IT company now, whether they understand that or not.
In this article I see figures on the numbers of petrol vs diesel cars currently on the road beside percentage figures for new registrations. This smells of press release fudging.
If you're going to provide figures, please be consistent. What is the breakdown, by percentage, of petrol vs diesel vs EV? This will be a much more useful figure than past figures vs new registrations.
I also notice repeated inferences that there will be no further ICE vehicle sales past 2035, including one direct quote to this effect. This is just plain false - as we know, the ban will be on new vehicles. Unfortunately I see this same falsehood regularly in the UK national papers.
A bit more attention to detail please El Reg!
I will be interested to see whether these "boot camps" can actually get across to these 6500 senior public servants the actual complexity of business-supporting large systems, and the inherent difficulties of both maintaining and replacing them.
Or are they just going to be taught a bit of HTML?
So these will all be done over the next three years then? Best of luck with that.
It'll take 12 months to set up the teams, especially as it'll need to be outsourced. Then they expect to analyse the existing business processes and the legacy systems that support them (including finding the non-existent/out of date/contradictory existing documentation), work out how it needs to be done now, code that up, test it and move it all into Prod over the next two years? For 50 of the "most used" systems? With doubtless the usual suspects like Craptia at the wheel?
Maybe I'll come out of retirement. If this is going to happen they will need to be throwing a hell of a lot of money at it.
Ok I can see the possibilty. However, how are these evil DPRK spies getting these jobs in the first place? I can't imagine that the English (or other) language skills of your average DPRK dev are all that good, given their education system and lack of (official) access to actual foreign language speakers. How are they passing interviews? So how successful is this "posing"? How many actual cases have there been?
This sounds a bit like "Furriners! Can't trust them you know" to me.
It's rather like the French approach to intersections.
It's clear that intersections are dangerous places, as there are a lot of accidents at them.
Therefore, one should approach any intersection at speed in order to minimise one's time in such a dangerous environment.
My old (10+ years?) one just lives in the car and does a fine job a supplying my music to the car stereo. Every now and again I bring it inside to update it with anything I've bought recently. The sound (with high bitrate recordings) is good enough for the car, as any imperfections are hidden by the road noise anyway.
When it dies I expect it'll be the spinny disk, so I'll just go the SD card replacement route and continue with it until it dies completely.
This seems a bit sledgehammer/nut to me. What is it that E&Y do that requires this level of security?
Yes, traffic about its customers should be encrypted in transit. However: what's the threat here? Are E&Y worried that someone with nation-state capabilities are going to want to read their correspondence, and therefore they should be implementing the interception detection as an additional security level?
The Tax Office(s) and the FCA might be interested in their workings perhaps, but neither of them would have the budget...
Yes - it's bad enough out there already with all the numpties and incompetents behind the wheel, without adding flaky AI to the mix. Add that to the demonstrably false idea that an inattentive "not-quite-driver" can take over immediately when the Ai goes wrong at high speed halfway through an episode of Bridgerton (never mind having a free hand if they're watching something less wholesome) and it's a recipe for total disaster.
Still, "Transport minister Trudy Harrison" won't have to worry - it'll be her driver's problem.
Thank you Cornetman - yes exactly.
I know well how markets work, but I'm a subscriber to the Warren Buffett style of looking at the underlying value of a business, rather than the school of buying shares in the hope they will rise because of others' stupidity/cupidity - otherwise known as the Greater Fool Theory.
It's the latter who have been bailing out at the first sign their bubble may be bursting.
For what value of "over"?
Last year (most recent figures I can find) they made a profit margin of 7.88% on $7.7Bn.
The media and market panic that we're seeing now is only based on the fact that Netflix subs have stopped growing for the first time ever. As with many listed companies, the stock market investors seem to think that growth is infinite and if you're not growing madly then you're a failure. Like many companies, Netflix remains (very) profitable and is a viable business.
Yes they were stupid in their predictions. However a drop of 25% in the share price is just silly.
There have been interesting reports in the UK press lately about subscription services, as people start to make choices about what to spend money on. It looks like Netflix and Prime are going to be the ones to stay, with Disney, Britbox etc likely to be dropped. Obviously, mileage will vary in other markets.
It's quite possible that the security services weren't allowed anywhere near his phone, particularly if it was his personal one (even though he was probably using that when he should have been using the official one).
If in the (surely unlikely) event that he was using his phone for purposes he shouldn't have been - organising piss-ups perhaps? - then he wouldn't want any servants of the state getting their hands on the proof.
I don't know if it's the case in the UK, but in Australia politicians don't get vetted and/or cleared. Yes ok, state-supplied equipment should be secured when handed to them, but keeping it clean thereafter would be a struggle.
If you're running a large estate then your devs will want to know what's changing in advance of deployment so their (usually unnecessary) "clever" tweaks can be tested against the New Thing.
Allowing OS updates to just happen as soon as they're available is a recipe for lots of pain.
YMMV of course, but I'd argue that almost any of the other "server" (well "mainframe" at the time) OS's were more comprehensible, because they hadn't gone out of their way to name the commands in as obscure ways as possible. Of course, knowing the obscure and non-intuitive ways of early Unix separated us proper nerds from the wannabes.
On the (eventual) PC side, CP/M was ok IMO. I never got that close to OS/2 so can't really comment on that one. The various flavours of DOS were ok as far as they went, but that wasn't very far.