Just shove an old book in one corner. Always worked for me...
494 posts • joined 2 Jan 2013
I hate to be the one to say it, but isn't this utterly pointless? I mean, it's basically the same as cutting a cord with lots of wires. If you already know what wire connects to which, it's trivial to repair the damage, but in the case of those already paralyzed, you wouldn't probably know what 'wires' were damaged, and thus would be impossible to repair.
Hell I could probably fix those poor monkeys with a soldering iron. Well, maybe, my hands are not as steady as they used to be...
I currently work as a social moderator.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. BBC Facebook pages on fire after the fall of Bake Off. I watched Z-Listers fade into obscurity from the house of Big Brother.
I stand on the forward bow of Twitter, tirelessly guarding the innocent against the depravity of humankind, tears in my eyes as I witness life collapsing around me. I've felt the exhilaration of knowing my actions have saved countless minds from corruption and despair.
I've seen it all... felt it.
So do I get the job?
Skynet is coming.
I'm genuinely worried about this, as this really was a easy, small and well coordinated attack on one company. Clearly there is no redundancy for Dyn, and companies reliant on it's services obviously didn't take any threat seriously enough to make arrangements.
What would happen if the same group, did this again, but instead on attacking one company, they attacked a larger number, with an even bigger botnet. What would happen if they rotated the servers being attacked, and the botnet attacking them on a regular basis? How the hell would that be stopped, short of cutting ann DNS servers - even if that was a viable last-ditch defense?
I can see this attack being nothing more than a test run. The 'big' attack is coming.
Too many bitter, selfish, lazy, pessimistic, arrogant, materialistic commentards on here, and throughout the western world.
If Musk wants to attempt this, then who the hell are we to say it won't work, we can't do it, it's too expensive, etc etc.
Today's humans seem to be so wrapped up in economics and their own hubris, that when anyone dares to do something that is beyond what is deemed uneconomical, or not in line with established physics, they jump on these people, and attempt to persuade them, and anyone else who is listening, that it can't/shouldn't be done, and they list reasons as to why. These reasons inevitably fall into the following categories;
Not economically viable/no profit
Cannot be done with today's physics/technology
All of the reasons given above are irrelevant to those attempting whatever it is they're trying - assuming that it doesn't directly affect the safety of the human race of course. Look at the past, the way everything new and considered a direct threat to the authority of the time, be it religious or governmental, there were always detractors from the truth - the flat world, the centre of the galaxy, the ability to survive in space - all these things were entirely scorned and ridiculed, yet all were proven to be correct.
How do we possibly know that what Musk is proposing won't be possible? People ridiculed the idea of a rocket that could land by itself on a moving platform in the ocean - but it's been proven to be possible.
And consider this. People talk about a fossil fuel shortage, and there are of course those that say it's a myth, and we'll never run out (usually oil companies..), Yet solar power is being used already to help with the power grid, to reduce the amount of power being created with such fuels. But what if. What if EVERY single building in the world that receives sunlight, was given a proper solar panel. Imagine the amount of power that would produce. It would probably be vast, and would severely reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned.
But those detractors immediately point out the cost of such an endeavour. There is no profit in this, therefore it's not feasible. But what IS profit? Just numbers on a spreadsheet. Important numbers of course, but numbers none the less. Imagine, just for a moment, that these numbers were irrelevant? What it solar panels were freely available and installed.
Wouldn't the global gain of such a thing become worthwhile? Profit would be second to the ability to no longer need fossil fuel. Surely THIS is the prize humanity should be aiming for, rather than how high a number we have in our bank accounts? Of course, as things are today, this isn't realistic. But with people like Musk, WILLING to use their vast resources to try these things, then the future could be a better place. But those of you who oppose this, do so with only the reasons I gave earlier - and these reasons are purely selfish. And as such, illogical.
Re: I would quite like a phone thats not ludicrously thin
Thicker phone = not as sexy (in corporate minds...)
Not as sexy = less sales.
Thinner please, so thin we can't even see it. That'll excite the two-legged ruminants of the world, and spontaneously exploding simply won't be an issue. And call it the Samsung Not Here+.
Pfft I can't pay O2, ScottishPower and a couple of other brands online anyway - they seem to think that they are a security risk and block all payment attempts.
Calling their fraud team, they tell me it's precautionary and they can't stop the blocks from happening.
I know that some companies are probably crooked, but...
THIS is one BIG reason we hate Windows 10.
If blocking ads kills a website, then their content is lost.
If the website in question required tons of tracking and advertising to survive... then it most likely isn't going to be missed.
El Reg uses advertising. I block it because it is (IMO) too obtrusive (it was a while back, I've not unblocked it for months). If it was a couple of ads tucked away in the corner, and not full screen on each side with massive click zones, I might consider unblocking. (I just checked - and no, they're still there. Sorry.)
Besides, I imagine El Reg doesn't just rely on dodgy ad networks, and hosts their own ads sold to companies directly?
Anyway, there is too much regurgitated trash on the web, and if half of it disappeared because of ad blocking, I really don't see that as a problem. I remember back in the old days of yore, when advertising consisted of a single banner at the top of the page. That was unobtrusive. Until someone realised that a GIF anim would work too. Then it all went downhill from there...
Maybe there should be a WWW Advertising Standard. Only x number of ads per page, with agreed restrictions on how they're presented and tracked,
Of course, I'm dreaming again...
Risk no longer equals reward.
Creativity comes from imagination. Imagination comes with costs. Costs comes from money. Money comes from profits. Profits come from sales. Sales come from certainty.
Certainty does not come from creativity.
Profits do not come from imagination.
Thus the world is broken.
" it should be operated as a not-for-profit company in order to service the requirements of the various stakeholders (Government, Consumers and the Retail Services companies who sell the services to consumers)."
And this is the prime reason it will very likely never happen.
There is something to be said for nationalisation, but it is usually a bad word. Besides, people don't actually mind paying for their internet service. It's just that the initial cost outlay is scary for BT; it might eat into more important things, like making sure those with superfast broadband can get it a little bit faster on the same bit of wire that's serviced people since the war...
BT - the caring company.
And somehow, they seem to think that the problem is more of servce - "...'while it agreed service levels have to improve, it was making progress in tackling the problem. "Thousands of engineers have been recruited and we are fixing repairs and installing new lines quicker than before.," it said.
Typical attempt at translating the issue of investment into what they already 'provide'.
It's an utter embarrassment living in the UK. I'm one of the incredibly fortunate ones - 80mb fibre in Scotland. But I want to move from here to somewhere a little more rural. I can do that - provided I am happy with a 1.5mb line. And I'm not even moving that far from a main town, which has at least 21CN.
Until less emphasis is put on 'potential profit' and more on the 'service' bit, nothing will change. The EU '100mbps' minimum is something BT will be very happy to get out of once we leave...
Save the Drone.
I fly Boeing 747's for a living* and I can guarantee you that a drone would make absolutely no difference to my flight-path. I know this, because I've dodged at least 2 dozen over the last 50 years, and never once has one caused me to drop out of the sky.
Therefore, firefighting aircraft are exactly the same, and I think they should apologise to the drone operator for causing him unnecessary duress in difficult times.
* on Microsoft Flight Simulator. So I have more experience than most.
"I use USB or LAN to synchronise my own files, NEVER the internet. The Internet is insecure and unreliable ."
Sorry, but this is becoming less and less of a reason to hate anything cloud based. When you hear about these 'password leaks' from various accounts, they are invariably from services that are not exactly used for personal, sensitive data. (excluding dating sites. That's a whole kind of different type of sensitive data...).
AFAIK, the best known cloud storage sites are also the most secure. The only way your data is going to be compromised is down to your own negligence.
There is also a lot less chance of losing data, like you can 'misplace' that USB key. Or that laptop.
1) Smoking should be banned in public. I don't want to smell / inhale your second-hand smoke.
2) The risk of long-term damage to the lung lining by nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT is a gamble I wouldn't want to take. Carbon monoxide makes it harder for red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body. Tar is a mixture of substances that together form a sticky mass in the lungs.
I think on balance, my version is worse. And besides, you are, yet again, a knower of nothing, yet an expert on everything. You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims, so I would put you in both the first and second categories of my previous comment.
I'm not talking about the financial cost of laying that cable. It is true they sold off to each other, ending up with Virgin, but I'm not really talking about that.
I'm talking about the fact it can be done, and should be done today, by a company who could easily swallow the bill - and why not have the guverm'nt help out with a few million?
(The concept of the 'taxpayer' is a phrase which pisses me off no end because you personally do not actually pay any more from your wages than anyone else (so you don't notice the difference between paying for a much needed broadband infrastructure update, or paying for millions of pounds of wasted projects), and so bleating about how you shouldn't be paying for something for other people, is a ridiculous argument)
The fact of the matter is, the current antiquated network is eventually going to fall over. You can only patch something up so many times before it begins to be economically pointless to repair. The problem I see right now, is that BT, being a private company, won't repair anything until they're forced to do so, because there is literally no other choice open to the UK, other than to bend over and take the copper.
Until something is done to either force them to spend the money and sort this mess out, and separate telephony from data, then nothing will change. And the chances of that happening right now is zero - stuff 'works' and we're paying through the nose for it - so in Capitalist Britain, why should anything change?
Oh and I personally think the 'expected returns' will be much more significant than 25 years ago. Other countries can do it, we have absolutely no excuse.
I know I might be missing the point here, and if I am, I apologise. But TV fibre was laid down back in the 90's, and that worked fine from what I understand.
It seems to be the main issue is BT just not wanting to separate telephony from internet services, which surely would be the obvious way forward.
After all, if Nynex and C&W laid down all that fibre for Virgin to use a decade later, then it means it can be done.
Of course, if the only thing that matters is profit, rather than improving the UK, then I guess we'll still be making phone calls using copper (or aluminium in some areas) cable, while the rest of the world are using quantum communication....
The argument about us not paying for the content we read... we didn't buy anything, so why would we pay for it - in any way?
It's a companies choice to use the web - no-one is forcing them. If they believe that ads are the only way they're going to make money... then perhaps they should start charging a subscription fee.
Ads should be opt IN - if you want to support this website, tick this box [_]
If not, have a great day.
Calling visitors freeloaders is not really the way forward.
Besides, do ads REALLY make that much money? I mean, let's look at El Reg for a moment. I'm imagining they sell advertising space, possibly with a click target. That's income right there, and I imagine it's not a small amount of cash, plenty to run the site and pay the bills.
watchmebathe.org* is covered with Google ads, those really irritating full-screen video ads, and various '25 reasons to not shave with sulfuric acid' clickbaits. I seriously can't imagine that making anywhere close to what El Reg makes for selling ad space.
I sometimes wonder if I really understand the world of internet advertising at all in fact.
* Not a real website. Probably. I never checked.
Re: Give it up, I'm not buying fuel any more
What a very odd argument.
Fossil fuel needs to go. Like, go. It's as old as the industrial age, and we're way past that. Oil companies don't like alternative power. It's a direct challenge to their obscene profits.
Hydrogen fuel is 100% the future of power. It's been proven to work. Drones are now using hydrogen fuel cells to get around for longer. They produce no pollutants as emissions.
It doesn't matter how difficult it is to produce or store, oil isn't exactly always easy to get at, but oil companies have no problem grinding up more bits of the crust to get to it. Solar power / mains power is still created by fossil fuel at it's source, apart from nuclear, which has problems of it's own.
Why people think that faster is better I'll never understand. The combustion engine is really past it's day and needs to go the same way as the waterwheel and steam engine.
Petrol heads are as arrogant and stubborn about their V8's as the NRA are about... well you know.
I suspect a lot of readers are missing the point here. It isn't just that a computer program beat a meatbag at Go, but that it was given something like:
'This is Go. You need to own more territory than the other player. You do this by placing stones on a 19x19 grid.
Off you go.'
And it did. And it played against itself, making mistakes, but eventually understanding the most efficient ways of winning. Pretty much like how we all learn.
And then it beat someone who was rather very good at it.
I would be most interested to see how the base program actually works - does it have anything other than the basic rules, or have the developers chucked in some other code that might possibly take away some of the 'thinking' from the program?
Oh and somoene said Poker? That's been going on for decades. Remember, poker is about learning how your opponents react to given situations. It wouldn't be much of a problem for a computer to use sensors such as IR cameras and moisture detection to determine how an opponent is 'feeling'. Or to play a few loose hands, to judge how others react.
It's obvious computers are beginning to show signs of being able to learn information, and act upon it. We should start to embrace this, not fight it - contrary to popular belief, Skynet isn't really going to happen - it's probably safer in a computer's 'hands' than it is in world leaders, in today's political climate.