* Posts by Arion

75 posts • joined 15 Jun 2010


Senator threatens FAA with legislation over in-flight fondleslabbing


This is an unmitigated disgrace. Let's give the situation a scientific basis by examining and interpreting some data.

Probability of electronic devices causing incident: Low

Consequence of electronic device related incident: Catastrophic

Effect of electronic ban on passengers: minor inconvenience

I interpret risk as a product of probability and consequence, and that low probability times catastrophic consequence evaluates to a risk greater than or equal to moderate ( I'm thinking high, but saying >= moderate to allow for scientific error/bias ).

I think an authority responsible for millions of lives, when balancing moderate risk with minor effect, has the professional duty to err on the side of caution.

Also echoing the earlier poster on the world of difference between allowing 3 certified devices that the pilots have direct control over, compared with 100 random devices scattered throughout an aircraft.

It seems that making laws is something that should not be trusted to politicians.

So you broke our encrypted files? Ha! They were DOUBLY encrypted


Re: If you encrypt something more than once...

I wouldn't think that re-encrypting (with different keys) would weaken the crypto in any way. If it did then the first thing a cryptanalyst would do with ciphertext would be to encrypt it again to introduce that weakness.

The main benefit of repeating the encryption is that if for example you do it twice, then you have two keys, and therefore double the total key length.

DES is algorithmically secure. There are no known attacks faster than brute force. Unfortunatly DESs 56 bit key size (64 - 8 checksum bits), makes it computationally feesible to brute force the key. 3des makes the key 3 times longer, so its currently safe, but slow.

I dont see any benefit in encrypting twice using AES-128 both times over using AES-256 once. In this example(situation described in article), I dont see the benefit in what is effectively them having half the key, and you having the other half. Having that said, from a defence in depth perspective, Its a good strategy to defend against both known, and unknown/imaginary threats. Googling for "This was fixed six months ago in OpenBSD" should illustrate my point.

Apple-v-Samsung $1bn iPhone fine: 'Jury foreman was biased'


So what now

Its often been argued that in a jury trial, you're depending ln the wisdom of a group of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. This case shows both that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that having juries deliberate behind closed doors, opens the way to a huge miscarrage of justice.

Whether or not the result should have been different in this case is immaterial. What matters was that it looks very likely ( assuming this retard is telling the truth in interviews, and that other jurers followed his lead ) case of a ridiculously unfair trial. Even if Samsung should have had that verdect returned, it shouldn't be from an unfair trial.

What is the way forward? What are the advantages of the current jury system that we want to maintain, and what are the problems with it. How would you address those problems, while maintaining the advantages, and indeed requirements?

Personally I think a court official should observe all deliberations, and intervene if the jury are misbehaving. This court official would be a few feet away from the deliberators, and communicate only in writing. He/she would be able to nip trivial transgressions in the bud, with a reminder of the jurys obligation/judges orders, would refer more serious cases to the judge, and would report at the end on whether or not the jury followed correct procedure.

Swiss photographer sues Apple for pilfering her eyeball


"get Apple to cough up a check for"

I thought the Reg was a .co.uk site. Don't we know how to spell "cheque" this side of the Atlantic? Next we'll be visiting Prague in the Check republic.

UK kids' charity lobbies hard for 'opt-in' web smut access


Re: The problem with this thread.


The validity of someones opinion isn't related to whether or not someone has children, or if so what their relationship is with aforementioned children. Perhaps people in different circumstances would have different preferences, but I don't think this dilutes their validity. This law presumably would affect both parents and non-parents, male and female equally.

I note that you didn't actually disclose your own family status, but for the record, I'm male, single, and I've got no children.


In theory I'm ok with this....

.... but in practice it's not that simple.

I think that protecting children, should be as simple as possible ( but no simpler ), but also that a free open internet be equally simple.

I'm unequivocally opposed to anything that hinders a free ( as in speech ) open internet to anyone over 16 who wants it, and I don't think that a free open internet should be an 'extra feature' that you need to wade through any extra red tape ( not even the clicking of an extra box ) to get to.

I don't think it should be opt-in ( where filtered by default ), or opt-out ( where open by default ) - I think people should have to explicitly choose whether they want filtered or unfiltered ( perhaps by checking a radio button, or a drop-down menu ( that doesn't default to either ).

On the other hand, that all makes far too much sense, and isn't something that simpletons ( like Esther, or Politicians ) are capable of bringing around to pass. In practice they'd make a mess of it, so my preference is for them to keep their noses out of it, and leave it to the parents.

Motorola Mobility loses to Microsoft in German patent battle


Re: Breaking up something large is PATENTED?

+1 on the TCP front. It just seemed so obvious as prior art, it was the first thing to spring to mind on reading the article, I can't believe they got anywhere here.

I wonder if TCP was brought up in court about this.

Facebook co-founder renounces US citizenship pre-IPO


Re: Time is money

Not so. The "time-is-money" argument only makes sense when applied to income tax, and even then it fails.

In most countries income tax rate is graduated depending on how much you earn. For example a CEO ( in Ireland ) may be paying 52% income tax, while the min-wage guy pays 20%.

That would mean that the high earning CEO works for the government up to about 27 weeks per year, while the min-wage guy only works 10.

ASA upholds customer complaint against eBuyer


The ASA typically aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, but I think they had a point here.

MySQL.com breach leaves visitors exposed to malware


One word; MariaDB.

Plods to get dot-uk takedown powers - without court order



What would you guys think if (a) they couldn't shut down a site, but only suspend it for 2 hours ( and that to retain the suspension, they'd need an injunction ), and (b), nominet operated a certified contact register, which busineesses could register themselves on to prevent such takedowns ( ie they couldn't take down domains whose certified contact details they had on file , withut a court order).

Celebrity Google+rs do need steenkin' badges



I wonder if they'll use cacert as one of the ways that people can prove themselves.

Microsoft vs Google patent ding dong gets stuck on repeat


Bmw patenting the airlines inventions

Based on your analogy, I'd consider that BMW's car shape, should be protected by copyright, rather than patents. If the controls are obvious, then yes, they should be unpatentable

I can't believe you're implying that prior art, the inventions of the airline industry, should be patentable by BMW.

Google sees 15% speed boost with HTTP tweak


Why Google should be treated differently to Microsoft

If Microsoft done this a couple of years ago to push the performance of Internet Explorer and hotmail, they'd have done so in a way that would have made it purposefully difficult for others to implement.

Google have on the other hand, made a reasonable effort to make it reasonably easy for others to re-use the work it has done for SPDY, and if you don't want to use SPDY, then the SPDY enabled part you're communicating with can just fall back to regular HTTP.

I think that they've published specs, a whitepaper, sample implementations ( in the form of chromium, and mod_spdy ), earn them the right to be treated differently from Microsoft.

Also, I'm not sure if google have a patent on this protocol, but if so, then the fact that it's less likely then Googles track record regarding Patents, if nothing else should earn them the right to be treated differently to Microsoft.

San Francisco BOFH must cough up $1.5m


Miscarrage of Justice

Perhaps there's something I'm unaware of here, but from what I've heard, I think that any technologist, who sides against Terry Childs, is guilty of Professional Treason. I think this particularly applies to the Network Administrator who was on the Jury on that trial.

As a systems administrator it is his professional responsibilty to secure access, and to err on the side of the networks security. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has an IQ with two or more digits, that such access should not be given to anyone who asks for it without the proper authority.

Stevie is right about one thing - I fail to grasp what is unethical about protecting access to the network, from people who in his professional opinion should not have had access to the network. If I recall correctly, he did hand the passwords over to the city mayor upon request. Can you please clarify, what exactly is unethical about refusing to hand passwords over to anyone other than the proper authority? I shouldn't have to ask a Professional that.

This case should have been the beacon of hope, that despite the burocrats, that if you stick to your professional, and ethical responsibilities, then with a little help from the courts, the truth will set you free. Unfortunatly, it seems that when burocrats, overestimate their own importance and worth, then truth and justice get packed up, and thrown out the window, leaving behind a cloud of despair.

Operators to get new SMS 999 obligation


Number Portability - a double edged sword

Here in ireland, it used to be that each operator had their own prefix, and you could easily tell which operator a person used by the prefix their number had.

The main reason this is useful is cheaper calls within operators ( voda to voda, or o2 to o2 is cheaper than voda to o2 or o2 to voda ). For this reason many people carry two handsets. Also previously someone could have a pbx, with gateways to the various operators, and decide which one to use based on the number. This doesn't work if the person has changed network.

I personally perfered the previous situation where if you changed provider, then you kept most of your number, but the prefix changed.

Google plugins force-feed open codec to IE and Safari


Pretentious Gits

It looks like there are a lot of pretentious gits out there who want to slate Google, and aren't going to let reason or logic get in the way.

Other than being part of the MPEG LA Patent Pool, which licences H.264, I can't see any logical reason to object to Flash without objecting to H.264. From the other perspective, if you're OK with H.264 ( and aren't a H.264 patent holder ), then there's no reason to object to Flash.

US may disable all in-car mobile phones


Excellent idea ( for a brainstorming session )

This is an excellent idea to come up in a brainstorming session. Unfortunatly ideas like this are supposed to evolve into something sane reasonable and rational, before you leave the brainstoriming session. They aren't meant to be taken outside of the brainstorming session.

Such technology would render the phones useless not matter regardless; regardless of whether the phone was held to the persons ear, or used via a hands-free kit ( which is legal ), regardless of whether the driver or a passenger is using the phone, and regardless if it's in the case of an emergency or not.

The only effect this will have is drivers being even more distracted while they watch out for cops, while they're talking on their phones.

Oracle spreads blame for MySQL 'misperceptions'


This is great news...

... for postgres or Maria backers.

Unless I've missed something significant, I can't see mysql being a viable long tern business for oracle, other than removing competition.

Google open sources Apache server speed mod


Erm back to you

> And isn't there a "viral" clause in the GPL stating that any modifications made to GPL

> software must also be released under the GPL? -- Not by a long shot.

He was wrong on this ( technically ), but he wasn't wrong by a long shot. He was wrong in that modifications to GPL software don't have to be distributed, which paved the way for the ASP loophole.

He was kinda right though, in that any releases, or redistribution made can only be done under the terms of the GPL.

Czechs stop Google Street View


This is stupid.

If you want to maintain privacy then you don't expose it to the street. If you can see it from the street then it's fair game.

Ryanair plumps for Dell EqualLogic



Yes - he does.


Customer Service?

I wonder if the author is refering to Ryanairs best on-time record, and fewest lost bags, etc, or if he's being ironic, and refering to Ryanairs refusal to pay for things that should be covered by travel insurance.

Google geek slammed over XP exploit


Yes - seriously

I understand what Shakje is saying, but he's missing the point.

I expect a company with the resources that Microsoft has behind it, to drop everything and get this security vulnerability fixed, tested, documented, and out the door in 2 hours flat.

It shouldn't take 5 hours, let alone 5 days, and certainly not 5 weeks to get a security vulnerability patch out the door.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020