* Posts by dan1980

2933 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Aug 2013

Spies would need superpowers to tap undersea cables

dan1980

Re: I doubt they splice

@AC

"Lol....You are talking about splicing the cable without being detected, do you really think they care if they found out or the owners could do much about it?"

Um, yes, they would care.

They would care because the entire reason one would go to all this trouble is to do it IN SECRET. If you have the fibre operators on side then there's really no reason to do this in the first place.

dan1980

Re: @RC

@LucreLout

The issue of collection is not that there are no ways to do it, but that the compromises and costs of collecting the data makes it more likely that they would look for other options.

As MANY posting here have skipped over, the specific claim being discussed is that these taps are there to monitor the communications of NZ citizens with the cooperation of the NZ government, with the understanding that this will allow the NSA to better spy in NZ citizens, allowing the NZ government to attempt to convince the people it doesn't spy on them.

Once you realise that that is the claim being made, the massive expense and or compromises required for collection makes this less plausible.

Again, the claim is that this was done with the cooperation of the NZ government and the context for this revelation is the NZ elections and the Kim Dotcom campaign, whose story has been focussed on the NZ government breaking its own laws to assist the US government.

While it is certainly possible, if we have to weigh up the factors and alternative methods available to the NSA, is it really that likely that they went that route to accomplish the specific goal claimed?

dan1980

Re: Possible; not likely.

Jeffy

Yes, I know the sub exists - that's why I mentioned it in my post : )

(Just not by name.)

And, to clear up all this - the 'not likely' part is me saying that the CLAIM of Snowden is not likely, not that tapping undersea fibre is not likely.

For a refresher, the CLAIM that Richard is questioning is that the NSA, with the help and cooperation of the NZ government tapped undersea cables to spy on NZ citizens en masse.

If you have the cooperation of the local government, there really isn't a reason why you would need to go to the trouble of doing all this. As Richard has very rightly pointed out, there are easier, land-based ways to accomplish the goal and they will yield better results!

You, and most others here are arguing that the NSA have the budget and capability to tap undersea fibre. I don't question that at all. It is not technically impossible or even impractical, merely expensive. As I said, myself, many have erred in underestimating what the US Government will spend on these projects.

But, that is not the claim being examined and questioned.

dan1980

Re: Possible; not likely.

@JeffyPooh

Ahhhh, that might just be the "special sub" I was referring to in my post . . .

: )

dan1980

Re: @RC

@Killing Time

With the disclaimer that Richard is a long-time favourite of mine outside of The Register (a speculative reality, at best), the barriers he mentions - getting to and opening the bundles - are not really the main ones.

All you need is a submarine with the ability to interface with the ocean - through sending divers out and bringing objects in. This already exists.

Once you have the ability to reach the cables and work on them in a suitable environment, nearly all of Richard's concerns evaporate. All that is left is a question of how to tap the cable without anyone realising - and there are already methods to do that - and how to filter/collect/retrieve the data.

The later is, really, the only big issue.

Still, the proposition being flogged is, indeed, rather far-fetched, but not because the technology is odd so much as that the technology would only be deployed for purposes other than those currently alleged.

dan1980

@Trevor_Pott

"Yup."

Oh good; I hate it when we fight. Also, apologies for the likely numerous typos. I spilt red wine on my keyboard and it's playing up. What I didn't spill, I drank so that may be accounting for a measure of the problem as well . . .

dan1980

@Trevor

I'll summarise my long post (though you of all people shouldn't begrudge me that!) with your own words:

"The presumption that these taps exist to spy on the hoi polloi of a country is probably nuts."

I agree. BUT, this is exactly the claim that is being made and the one that I believe Richard is questioning by saying that there are easier methods available. The claim was that the NSA was (and is) doing this with the assistance and cooperation of the NZ government in order to collect data on citizens.

As you say, "probably nuts" to do this by tapping undersea cables.

dan1980

@Trevor

I think we are more or less on the same wavelength here but, as I said, I still think that collection is the main issue. Yes, there are options but I believe that the implications of these options don't really match the what one might suspect as the purpose of the exercise.

This is not to say that is couldn't or wouldn't (or doesn't) happen, as I think I make clear in my post. I believe it is not even close to outside the realm of the possible. For me, it's about weighing up the factors and seeing whether this is likely.

One thing we have seen is that the NSA seems to get ore targeted information by getting closer to the source but backs this up by much larger-scale 'dragnet'-style collections.

The most important point to keep in mind, however, is that the NSA apparently did this WITH THE FULL COOPERATION OF THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT. That is the claim being made. Not that they have selectively tapped undersea fibre in order to spy on their allies' governments, but that one of those governments worked with them to collect data on their citizens.

The context of this announcement is around the NZ elections and proving that the current NZ government is in cahoots with the NSA and lying about spying on NZ citizens. If the revelation was that the NSA was spying on the government itself then that really doesn't serve the purpose. There is the continuing saga for Kim Dotcom and his fight against the NZ government and especially their alleged (though very likely) collusion with the US to subvert local laws.

It seems that you are arguing a different point, which is that the NSA could well tap undersea fibre for the purpose of spying on other governments.

On that, I think we can agree far more readily because this is information that the NSA cannot get easily in other ways or through other agreements.

I have nothing but the highest respect for Richard - he is, and has been for many years, an outstanding journalist who presses his points and works hard to get to the heart of matters and never just regurgitates party lines. None of that means he can;t be wrong but in this instance I think it's important to keep the original claim in mind - that the NZ government worked with the NSA to do spy on its citizens.

And, with that in mind, Richard's assertion that there are easier and therefore MUCH cheaper and more comprehensive avenues available should be assessed favourably.

Perhaps the NSA does indeed tap these lines AS WELL, in order to target the NZ government specifically but that is not the claim being made and challenged.

dan1980

Possible; not likely.

We have learned that things many once considered too expensive to be practical* have indeed been implemented. The MASSIVE amounts of money thrown at the NSA to undertake any and all surveillance and collection is obscene and many people erred by vastly underestimating the money the Government was willing to spend to create a surveillance state.

At a basic level, tapping undersea fibre cables is really just a refinement of the process that was used during the cold war - park a special sub above the cable and get to work. That 'work' would of course be ridiculously exacting and require hundreds of millions of dollars of customisations to a submarine but there is absolutely nothing outside the realm of possibility.

Once you assume that there is a submarine so equipped as to enable work on a cable bundle in a suitable (i.e. dry and powered) environemnt, only two questions remain. The first is how they have managed to extract usable data from a fibre without interruption or detection and the second is how they are collecting that data.

Of all the difficulties Richard has raised, the question of collecting the data is actually the biggest because 'tapping' a cable involves copying the data stream somewhere else.

In the now well-known operation during the Cold War to tap a Russian cable, divers went back periodically to swap tapes out. The amount of data flowing through modern undersea fibre links is not trivial to capture and your only two options are to have a device on site that records and is then collected periodically or to run your own cables back to home base.

Laying your own fibre back is HUGELY expensive - much more so than the tapping operations themselves and so is presumably a bridge too far. That leaves on-site collection which, while cheaper, comes with numerous tricky problems, such as the size of the storage you deploy, the electricity to power it (I don't think you could do it from the supplied power of the cable without someone noticing) and, of course, the continual collection of the data from all these taps.

You could reduce the collection requirements by recording only data that matches certain criteria but that would require real-time analysis of quite impressive power, which of course increases the cost and difficulty of installing and powering the device!

HOWEVER, there is no indication that the NSA would undertake such expensive programs where there were significantly cheaper and easier options available. The best option is simply to get the cooperation of the cable operators. If you have that then there is no need to deploy submarines for installation and collection rounds.

It is possible that the NSA are able to tap undersea fibres without the providers knowing.

However, it is far more likely that the providers do know about this and, if so, this would make it pointless to perform the collection undersea.

* - Such as quoting the costs of some outrageous amount of data storage.

Read IBM's note to staff announcing mandatory training and 10% pay cut

dan1980

Re: Top marks, IBM, top marks . . .

@AC.

Ahh.... yeah.

I never claimed that those making these decisions weren't looking to profit from them!

dan1980

@JDX

Or because their employer has decided to refocus its efforts onto other business areas.

dan1980

Re: Is this actually warranted?

@LucreLout

"I apologise in advance, for this will sound harsh . . ."

Not at all! I wasn't implying that it was Wall Street's job to care. Wall Street cares about making money and that is that. The problem comes when the WAY that Wall Street makes money becomes utterly divorced from the real, long term viability and profitability of the company they are trading, as is increasingly the case.

It is no longer about holding good stocks and collecting a dividend, which is the very idea of the shares - the investors share in your success as a company. This is the way it SHOULD work - people support a company by investing their money in it and that money is repaid when the company grows and prospers.

I appreciate that that notion is almost unimaginably naive but my point is that every step away from that is a step towards Wall Street being not a force for widespread prosperity but instead for concentrated wealth.

The real problem is that, while unrestrained capitalism may well increase wealth, that wealth becomes concentrated rather than increasing the standard of life of the broader community.

The most illustrative way to put this is by looking at the many companies that have fired thousands of staff even though the company has made a good profit. This happens regularly and the reason is that, while the company is profitable, it is not as profitable as some cadre of academics have predicted that it should be.

I wouldn't call it evil but it is the essential problem of the stock market - that employees are laid-off because someone earning an order of magnitude more than them in an office a thousand miles away has, essentially, made the wrong prediction.

Communism is inhuman (I mean that - it denies our basic human rights and urges) but unrestrained capitalism is every bit as destructive, socially, as it is merely a re-framing of 'survival of the fittest'. where the fittest are the wealthiest and most ruthless. The only answer is a moderated blend of the two and the only way to approach such a blend is to look always and ever to the desired RESULT, rather than allowing a dogmatic concept to run unchecked.

Most modern countries follow this idea at least partly but we need to make it the foundation of our societies - to seek after the greatest good for the greatest number while never sacrificing theinnate RIGHTS of the individual. And no, making profit is not a 'right'.

Sorry for all that - I am 50% left, 50% drunk. You'll have to excuse me. (Or not.)

dan1980

Re: Is this actually warranted?

@Erik4872

The answer is relatively simple, which is that Rometty has promised $20 EPS in 2015 and anything that does not work to that goal is expendable.

Her goal is not revenue and she has stated as much fairly plainly and indeed, revenues are in decline.

Pushing for steadily increasing EPS while revenue steadily declines is simply not sustainable. The way they are making this 'work' is to jettison anything that does not directly add to their EPS for the current quarter. And each quarter that means getting rid of staff.

Wall Street simply does not care for a profitable and sustainable IBM; they care only about making money from them. If that ends up sinking the company then so be it - there are always more companies to make money from.

dan1980

Top marks, IBM, top marks . . .

I wonder how many of the 15,000 cut jobs are expected to be a result of pissed-off 'under-performing' workers walking out?

I knew a guy once who used a similar strategy to get rid of girlfriends he didn't like - pissed them off until they left. He was not well regarded by those who knew him.

IBM have a serious problem, which is that they are wedded to their deal with the Wall Street devil, also known as the 2015 Roadmap. They have promised a $20 EPS by 2015 and they must show they are on the right track. This has meant layoffs after layoffs.

In some (many) ways, 'Wall Street' is to blame. The current situation with high-speed trades based on sometimes torturous algorithms has led to strategies of jumping on any mis-pricings, with stocks being held for mere minutes or changing hands - in some cases - many, many times per second. This type of trading is completely agnostic to long-term growth or any fundamentals of the traded company.

Even where HFT is not used, this situation has created a culture of NOW profits.

The end result is that IBM appears to be sacrificing its long-term profitability as a company in order to convince the analysts, whose prognostications are then jumped on by the howling hordes of investors.

The show goes on. For now.

What's this 'pay as you go' cloud crap? Dunno about you, but my apps don't work that way

dan1980

Re: Infinite loop

@AC

I love backwards compatibility. But there is a dark side.

Backwards compatibility means extra code, in the form of legacy and/or new code. The more code there is, the more potential bugs and security holes there are. You may also find that the requirements for maintaining backwards compatibility means that some new features may be more difficult to implement and thus are delayed or dropped.

dan1980

Re: I don't know how

@Trevor _Pott

'I did not recommend anyone move "idle-heavy" workloads to Amazon. I said I'd build new workloads there. Ones that burst. That are designed from the ground up to lower that "% more than running and staffing your own teams" to the lowest number possible.'

Not only that but building burstable applications may well open up additional functionality or opportunities.

I remember reading about a company that decided to do an ad for the Super Bowl (or something like that) and what they did was re-engineer their website so that it could run using the scalability of a CDN. Thus, when the website traffic increased by several orders of magnitude, that investment paid off as the site was able to handle all the extra traffic.

It wasn't about lowering cost so much as opening up new opportunities for increasing revenue.

dan1980

Re: Is this even controversial?

@Vociferous

I wouldn't call the concept a ripoff as a flat statement. Certainly many PAYG services work out to be more expensive but simply being more expensive doesn't mean it's a ripoff.

Many, many companies prefer the ability to deploy stuff without the huge upfront costs. For some companies, PAYG can mean the difference between updating all your staff (say to the new version of Office) in one hit and upgrading in a tick-tock fashion. I know plenty of clients who have done this in the past, with the result being that they have Vista, 7 and 8 PCs running Office 2007, 2010 and 2013. It all works but they would certainly prefer standardisation.

Of course, that's just one, specific, scenario but my point is that the concept itself is not, ipso facto, a ripoff. For one thing, it can free up capital, which for some businesses can be far more important than TCO.

This can be especially true of new businesses who need a full IT environment but have far better ways to spend those piles of cash than servers and licenses. If they couldn't use a PAYG system then they may simply not have the money to deploy the same features in house and thus may end up with a system that doesn't meet their needs as well.

From the other direction, utilising PAYG services may enable a (generally small) company to benefit from functionality that they could not deploy themselves and this may result in greater efficiency or profitability.

Yes, PAYG/subscription is usually more expensive in the long (or even medium) term but this fact does not automatically make all such services 'ripoffs'.

If you see my history of comments I am not fan of "because cloud" (perfectly stated, Trevor) but I am a fan of deploying the best solution for a given client and a solution you can afford to deploy pretty much always beats a solution you cannot afford to deploy.

Big Content Australia just blew a big hole in its credibility

dan1980

Dear 'Big Content',

If both Fluffy Bunny and I agree that your argument is empty and disingenuous, then your should probably go back to the drawing board. Now would be good. We'll wait.

d.

dan1980

Even if someone waved a wand and all digital content was available to all Australians under exactly the same circumstances as in the US*, the boat has largely already sailed.

Australian's have had to deal with being treated as second rate customers for too long and that has contributed to the level of 'piracy'.

There are breaches of copyright in every market; you therefore have to ask yourself why Australia has a higher rate of piracy than the US? It's not because of some inherent 'entitlement' or disregard for the content providers' rights. Nor is it some kind of cultural thieving mindset (whatever our history may imply).

The most likely reason is that people who might otherwise have acquired content legally started obtaining it illegally when they either couldn't get it or found it was priced far higher than other markets. They may have even tried to get it from those other markets and been rebuffed by geoblocking and credit card restrictions.

Now, these can be gotten around but I think most ordinary people would ask themselves why they should have to work harder to gave a company their money so as to purchase their goods.

None of this excuses the behaviour, it's just a bit of a note as to why simply showing that average prices are equivalent now doesn't really change anything. Or at least won't have a large effect immediately.

What we need is a generation growing up with content widely and easily available under simple, fair terms, without undue delay and at reasonable prices. The generation that grows up under those circumstances will obtain far more of their content legally than a generation having to pay more for less.

* - Which includes connectivity considerations such as latency, bandwidth and download limits as well as selection considerations, such as available content and release dates. In addition, we must look at things that are available free to watch online in the US (faree 'catch up' services of some shows) but not in Australia due to geoblocking.

Oi, Tim Cook. Apple Watch. I DARE you to tell me, IN PERSON, that it's secure

dan1980

Questions are good . . .

. . . but answers are better.

For this exercise to be worthwhile, Mr. Cook must be pressed for accurate answers. That means that the specific topics and concerns must be explain ahead of time and the expectation made clear that Mr Cook should make sure he knows the answers or brings suitable technical assistance to explain it.

Otherwise you just have a CEO saying that he isn't sure and will have to investigate and is not across all the technical details.

Further, the questioning must be sufficiently persistent and the Attorney General must make sure that Mr. Cook actually gives direct answers to direct questions, rather than the non-specific waffle so common to such 'interviews' (just like politicians). Which of course means that the Attorney General's office must formulate suitably direct and specific questions.

"Where is data stored?" is direct but not specific enough for any answer to be useful.

dan1980

Re: Really?

@D.A.M.

Why is that wrong? The point to a representative democracy is that the elected officials should represent the views of the people.

When did listening to the people you represent and aligning your platform with their views become 'pandering'?

Certainly when you vote in alignment with the proddings of big corporate donors, this is not great but if you are acting on behalf of the people, that's got to be a step in the right direction, no?

Yes, of course, not everyone in the electorate is a 'progressive' and many, many won't be, but that's the point of elections (at least when they're run fairly) - to find out which representative the majority of the people support.

With the disclaimer that I realise the naivete of this statement, getting elected is an endorsement by the public that your platform and/or policies best represent their collective views. In a sense it doesn't matter if the candidate really believes in those views or is just 'pandering'. So long as he or she actually acts in accordance with those promised ideals then there is good representation.

In practice this is all more complicated and far less ideal but if adopting progressive ideals gets you elected as the Attorney General of Connecticut then the majority (54%) of the people of Connecticut want a progressive Attorney General.

PLEASE STOP with the snooping requests, begs Google as gov data demands skyrocket

dan1980

Re: Maybe if the spooks had to pay

@JimmyPage

Um . . . they don't pay; we do. (Please tell me you understand taxation . . .)

Every billionaire needs a PANZER TANK, right? STOP THERE, Paul Allen

dan1980

Re: Picking the nit...

War is as much about logistics as it is bravery or strategy or technology.

Rugged, reliable and readily available is a powerful combination.

dan1980

Re: Pedantry alert

Am I the only one whose tired eyes and brain saw the letters resolve to 'pantswagen'?

dan1980

Re: Mamaaaaaa!

You do realise that he is using his own money (or so it seems) to purchase a rare piece of military history so he can donate it to a museum where it will be preserved for future generations, right?

I mean, I know he earned his riches purveying software that many dislike but preserving our history is an admirable goal.

Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians

dan1980

@I.A.S

Yes, that's what I thought - conscription means they have IT professionals to hand without having to rely on contractors. Unfortunately (for them), it also means that some of those conscripts are likely resentful or at least not overly committed.

dan1980

Is it just me who thinks that "intelligence reservists" is a rather bad idea from a military perspective?

From a humanitarian perspective, it's great because all military forces should have a healthy dose of civilians or, where less possible, people with a firmer hold on normal, every-day life. I must confess to being utterly ignorant of Israeli military doctrine and recruitment practices but one can expect that reservists have other, day-to-day jobs that require critical thinking and decision making rather than the ability to say "yes sir" and push your scruples to the background to keep your conscience company.

For the record (not that it matters) I have nothing against those who serve in the military, just the command and the politicians calling the shots.

In a way, we should think of civilians and reservists as a kind of circuit-breaker, with a lower threshold for questionable practices than perhaps other components may have. We should thus use them liberally to prevent unchecked surges causing greater damage.

Hackers-for-hire raided 300 banks, corporates for TWELVE YEARS

dan1980

What this shows is that it is very difficult to protect against a professional, organised and well-funded attack.

'Speargun' program is fantasy, says cable operator

dan1980

"It is a physical impossibility to do it without us knowing . . ."

Fair enough - no argument there, but that hardly proves it didn't happen, only that you weren't ignorant of it if it did.

That said, I do agree that there are easier ways to do this - I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic.

Microsoft buys Minecraft for $2.5bn. Notch: I'm getting the block outta here

dan1980

I still don't actually get the point (or popularity) of Minecraft. I mean, what's the deal? That said, I don't get the popularity of Angry Birds either.

I enjoy video games as much as the next person but I just don't see the allure of this one.

dan1980

Re: Kerching!

@AC (and the down-voters)

I took that as a gentle joke, saying that many of the tasks of Minecraft have parallels in Linux. To the person who shot back to say this was ignorance, perhaps you misinterpret the purpose of a joke?

There is no evidence that our cowardly friend is in anyway ignorant of the amazing breadth of modern Linux experiences. Many jokes are based on a core of truth but take advantage of stereotypes and hyperbole to turn a simple observation or comparison into humour.

Lighten up people.

No, Linux isn't all blinking cursors and obscure commands but dry cleaners don't all ruin and shrink your clothes but the skit is still funny.

NBN Co correction: We're rubbish at broadband rollout and NEVER improved

dan1980

Re: What's wrong with them?

BTW - I didn't deliberately select the WTF icon - must have accidentally hit the mouse wheel - but I have decided to leave it as it does represent the reaction I had to your comment. I really do wonder if you read it properly given the response.

dan1980
WTF?

Re: What's wrong with them?

@Fluffy Bunny

Andrew Bolt and Miranda Device were, generally, supporting Abbott's views and criticising Rudd/Gillard's views. That was my only point. I never said I agreed with them or not, just that THEIR views at that time accorded with Rupert Murdoch's political aims and thus he gave them space - in the case of Devine, by hiring her and in the case of Bolt, by increasing his print space and circulation.

My argument was not that they were right or wrong, simply that the people who controlled Newscorp hired people whose views and articles were supportive of the position the newspapers were taking.

I made this point not to condemn it (or them) but as an analogy for how the Coalition government AND THE LABOR GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEM made sure that the people on the board of NBN Co were people who supported the government's view.

The whataboutery of slamming Fairfax is so beside the point as to be nearly nonsensical in this context. It doesn't matter if Fairfax papers are better, worse or exactly the same. It doesn't matter if they do exactly the same thing as Newscorp. The reason it doesn't matter is because I was using Newscorp as an ANALOGY (please tell me you understand that) rather than bringing them up for criticism.

Whether Andrew Bolt is the most honest, straight, non-partisan, unbiased 'breath of fresh air' this country has ever seen is NOT RELEVANT. If you think it is then you have utterly failed to understand my point. Perhaps deliberately.

ALL that matters is that his views (whether accurate, insightful, biased, untrustworthy, honest or outright fiction - it doesn't matter!) accorded with the political aims of those who gave him print space and circulation and directly correlated with the change of political aim of those same people.

Not one part of that argument is partisan in any way because all I was implying was that the makeup of the NBN Co board reflects the government so this board says things that supports this government and the last board said things that supported the last government.

Whether the individual members are partisan or not is, again, irrelevant. All that matters is that the views they are stating match what the people who hired them want them to say.

DUCKCROCZILLA 'alien' dinosaur could emerge from THE SEA

dan1980

Paddling, webbed, feet at the back and a croc snout at the front? Is it too much to hope that this might be enough to get Ray Comfort to stop stroking his banana?

Uber alles-holes, claims lawsuit: Taxi biz sued by blind passengers

dan1980

Re: Ought to be so easy...

@Tapeador

Your type of response is exactly the reason why we can't have constructive discussions about race and multiculturalism and what it means for everyone.

In Australia, Tony Abbott (whom I am not a fan of, to be clear) recently copped a lot of grief for talking about people getting behind 'Team Australia'.

It was received as being jingoistic and racist.

The problem is that we are all so scared of being seen as racist that we rush to denounce anything that has the barest hint of it. Thus, when someone points out that some Indians/Pakistanis are scared of or distrustful of dogs, we scream them down. Why?

It's fucking well true. I could parade a dozen Indians/Pakistanis who own or are absolutely fine with dogs and react no differently than anyone else. BUT, there are many from the subcontinent who, due to either religion (some Muslims believe that touching a dog will make them 'unclean'*) or simply the circumstances of their upbringing (in many parts of the subcontinent, dogs are rarely pets and are those seen are likely to be wild) have a noticeably different reaction to dogs than those of us who have grown up with them.

So what do you do about that?

This is where multiculturalism is not so flash. My own, personal, view is that living in a society with a variety of different races and cultures is a great opportunity to learn from each other and adopt what is best. In other words, to become one big blended culture.

In the case of, say, reaction to dogs, I would argue that it is better to adopt the position of not being afraid of tame service dogs than to adopt the position of being scared or distrustful of them. I think the former will be the richer culture than the latter.

As for the comment you were specifically commenting on, what was so bad about it?

The poster wasn't saying that people of other cultures and ethnicities are 'rotten', 'uncivil' or 'evil'. What he was saying is that when people from other cultures practice such behaviours, it - at least sometimes - gets excused as "cultural values".

That doesn't means that the same or similar behaviours aren't common to 'white' people as well or that the vast majority of foreign people living in 'western' nations aren't perfectly normal people that are good, law-abiding, well-integrated and general stand-up people.

No, what the poster is saying is that when certain behaviours come from someone of a different ethnicity or culture, that behaviour is more likely to be excused or ignored than if the same behaviour came from a westerner.

An example is the treatment of women by some individuals from some ethic and religious groups. I do not mean any physical or even psychological abuse, but simple the respect and position accorded to women inside that culture. The idea of the poster - I believe - is that if a white, native, westerner were to forbid his wife from having a job, driving a car or leaving the house by herself then we, in greater society would condemn him as being a domineering chauvanist and some would call it an abuse relationship. The same situation in a Muslim household is far, far more likely to be excused or ignored, for fear of appearing culturally insensitive or of trying to force our values onto others.

We believe in equality for women, just not enough to risk appearing insensitive. We believe young girls should be sent away to have their genitals mutilated but we don't stop it. We believe in free speech is essential for our way of life but for it ends up taking second place to making sure we don't hurt a religious group's feelings. When disenfranchised young people who grow up in poor areas without work or much chance at a good future riot after heavy-handed police tactics, we must 'get tough', but when it's a different cultural group, we must 'understand'.

It's about applying the same rules and same standards for everyone, even if some people will cry that it is insensitive.

In the UK (and Australia), service dogs are allowed anywhere that their owners are. They are allowed in taxis and hire cars and if you operate one then you are OBLIGED to take the person and the dog. There is no loophole for being scared of dogs or being worried you will become unclean. If you can't accept that, then DO NOT BE A DRIVER!!!

It's got nothing to do with race or religion in the end - if your personal preferences or beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the legal requirements of your profession then you either need to change your beliefs or your job.

These are discussions that need to be had in the open, without fear that people like you will jerk your knee and scream 'racist!'.

* - The idea is similar, religiously, to forbidden foods but is misplaced - it is only contact with a dog's saliva that is unclean.

dan1980

Re: My dog is Murphy.

@Cyberelic

What the hell are you on about?

If you find a foreign-born person's reaction to your dog insulting, just think how they might feel about your description of that reaction. Squawking? Really?

If your point was that some immigrant populations react differently to service animals than you as an individual, or even 'Western' populations as a whole might, then say so plainly.

Indeed, it might have been a valid point if you followed it by explained that in your opinion, companies like Uber need to be aware of the cultural differences and sensitivities and make sure they provide better education and clear guidance to their staff as to what is expected on them and make sure that they are comfortable with the requirements of the job.

Perhaps you could have gone on to say that the failing in this area may be due to an inherent 'Western' view in management where they didn't even understand the nature or the problem.

But no, you went with squawking weirdos in strange clothes huddling in corners. Love Britain, vote BNP!

dan1980

Re: @Dan

@Ian Michael Gumby

You misunderstand me.

What I mean is that the nature of Uber means that these types of incidents are more likely to happen. They happen to people catching 'real' taxis too. My assertion was just that the more independent nature of Uber - personal vehicles without company uniforms or branding or dispatch operators and with much more freedom given to the drivers - getting drivers who break the rules will be more likely.

Uber won't want to admit this publicly, of course, but they should at least be prepared for it internally and make sure that they are even more vigilant and responsive than a traditional taxi company in identifying any breaches and punishing them appropriately.

dan1980

Part of the point with Uber is that, as private hire services, they are bound by different regulations than 'normal' taxi drivers.

Uber drivers are also, on average, far more independent than their taxi equivalents.

This kind of thing should be an expected risk in the system so Uber should have measures in place to stop this. Perhaps they do, in which case I would expect that the drivers had been at the very least suspended for several weeks.

The structure of Uber means that they have to be vigilant for issues such as these and fast and strict in how they address them.

dan1980

Re: Sounds very suspicious ..

What difference does it make?

Unless the suggestion is that the Uber drivers would have responded differently if it was a more legitimate passenger, I fail to see what the point is.

That this may have been a 'sting' operation by the taxi industry doesn't alter or excuse the behaviour of the Uber drivers one iota.

Hawking: Higgs boson in a BIG particle punisher could DESTROY UNIVERSE

dan1980

Re: George Osborne is the saviour of the Universe

Hawking: "...unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate."

I'd swear he said much the same thing in one of his books.

City hidden beneath England's Stonehenge had HUMAN ABATTOIR. And a pub

dan1980

Re: 'Boffin's ... seriously

@NeilPost

I shall add my voice - the word is 'boffinry'.

And, on a point of order, 'boffin' (as others have pointed out,) is a term of affection. To me, I see it in the same vein as when my clients refer to me as a 'wizard' because I have fixed something or other for them. Indeed, the very fact that they don't understand what I did or how is the point - they are saying that I possess knowledge beyond their ken and that they are impressed by that.

Now, I conceded that it's perfectly possible that you understand the spirit that the word 'boffin' was meant in. If so, it would seem that you may be implying that through ignorance of the nitty-gritty, Jasper was 'blinded by science' and thus, as impressed as my clients are when I fix a print queue, Jasper has failed to understand that the 'science' being presented is flaky and not worthy of being called 'boffinry'.

In which case, I invite you to present your counter findings.

Either way, Jasper is indeed reporting - he is reporting that some scientists/historians somewhere have proposed some new theories based on some new discoveries. Based on what I know, I'd say he's just about f^%king nailed in because that is exactly what has happened; some scientist/historians somewhere have proposed some new theories based on some new discoveries.

I am pretty sure that Jasper at no point put his big stamp of approval on to say that he had, personally, investigated the research, and found it to be rigorous and well-supported so I'm not really sure what a humanities degree has to do with anything.

dan1980

Re: Yes, but....

I wouldn't say they're 'cool' but they do give you a reason to do up your top button. I'm really not a fan of the whole invisible tie look this current chap has going on. (But to be fair, I'm not always focussed on the 'main' character . . . )

dan1980

Re: Flesh flailing?

@elDog

Utter conjecture backed by nothing but half-remembered snippets of half-heard, half-read theories that I only half-understood anyway, but I believe that they had special reverence for bones, so perhaps this was a way to extricate the spiritually important parts of the dead.

Or not - maybe Wiltshire circa 2500BC was just a bit of a dull place so a night of ale and corpse flaying seemed a good way to spend a solstice.

Or perhaps it was an offering to the lizard people.

What's an Ultrabook? Now Intel touts 2-in-1 typoslabs to save PC biz

dan1980

Re: Haven't we heard all this before?

We've also been promised the saviour of the 'PC biz' more than a few times too . . .

Get thee to YouTube, Turnbull tells community TV broadcasters

dan1980

Turnbull . . .

. . . you're a c$#t.

Oh wait, sorry, I have been unkind. After all, you are pushing for a state-of-the-art broadband network so that will be fine. What? Oh, right, no - still a c$#t.

(Apologies for the language.)

'Serious flaws in the Vertigan report' says broadband boffin

dan1980

Re: Show me the hardware.

Just to clarify Thorne's very valid point (as it took me a couple of reads) . . .

DSL and PSTN services run over the same sets of copper twisted pair telephone lines that run from your location back to the exchange.

The difference is that DSL services are more finicky than PSTN services and so require a better connection. What this means in practice is that while the twisted pair cabling running to your building will be fine for making telephone calls, it may be inadequate for a DSL service.

Going into more detail, this is generally due to noise on the line, which is, in turn, usually due to bad connections and taps or just poor quality copper.

If you think of PSTN calls as just data (which they are) then they are a much lower data rate than DSL services. In increasing rates, it would go: PSTN < ADSL < ADSL2 < ADSL2+.

As with ethernet networking, higher data rates (10Mb, 100MB, 1000MB) require better cables and this requirement is increased as distance increases. In other words, the higher the data rate and the longer the signal is travelling, the better the cable needs to be. In networking, CAT5 will work fine for 100Mbps and will likely serve for gigabit over short differences if the cable is good and interference low. Over longer distances, however, CAT5 will likely be unable to support 1000Mbps. CAT5e will.

People with noisy lines are sometimes limited to ADSL (1) or, if they can get ADSL2/2+, then it is likely to be effectively limited to near-ADSL speeds.

Thorne's point was that such a situation is of no concern to Telstra as they only need to have cabling good enough for the low-data rate PSTN services.

Directly countering Fluffy Bunny's point, it is perfectly possible for the copper to be fully within spec so far as Telstra is concerned (and thus not in need of maintenance or replacement) and yet be unsuitable for speedy or reliable Internet access.

dan1980

Re: Show me the hardware.

@ Abel Adamski

Yes - I should have been a bit clearer. I meant that in the context of the people asserting that the FTTN was able to be efficiently upgraded to the original FTTP spec. The reason being that some people are saying that the FTTN is clearly the best option because it can be a kind of middle-ground stepping stone to a full FTTP.

In pointing out the 1:32 ratio of the GPON network, I was implying much the same as you are saying, which is that if you split the existing inbound fibre out to the same number of endpoints as each FTTN cabinet would have, then it wouldn't be the same as the original GPON FTTP plan as that is 1:32 and thus would require more inbound fibre.

Again - should have been more specific.

dan1980

Re: NBN for average or high end users?

@ Abel Adamski

"The private sector failed to deliver in fixed broadband Nationally."

No argument that the private sector hasn't delivered a national fibre network but I am not to keen on throwing around the word 'failed'.

There's just no way a private company could afford it - big projects like this just have to be government projects. Further, the profit margin wasn't there. The projection was always for this to make money for Australia but it wouldn't have made enough to keep a company's share-holders happy.

I think the projected figure was around 5-7%.

And that's the fundamental flaw in the standard right-wing position of privatisation and 'market forces'. The problem is that the Government can create services that run at a small profit and thus deliver better value. They can also work on larger timescales compared to public companies being watched like hawks for growth each and every quarter.

One of the best things about the Labor FTTP plan was that it would have greatly minimised the Telstra monopoly. That did mean greater upfront costs as there would be new ducting laid but the end result would have been a cheaper system - ongoing. Compare to MalcolmNET, which fills Telstra coffers and gives us 70,000 great, ugly, hulking active nodes full of DSLAM equipments that needs maintaining.

Microsoft tells judge: Hold us in contempt of court, we're NOT giving user emails to US govt

dan1980

Re: Good

@ratfox

Yes, that seems likely. The SCOTUS only hears so many cases per year but this looks to be one that ends up clarifying the intersection of several laws and laying down a significant precedent.

Given the SCOTUS's purpose and the wide-reaching nature of this case, I'd say it's almost certain to end up there.

dan1980

"The US has entered into many bilateral agreements establishing specific procedures for obtaining physical evidence in another country including a recently-updated agreement with Ireland . . . We think the same procedures should apply in the online world."

It's funny - the way both software companies and government/law enforcement selectively choose when digital is the same as physical and when it isn't.