Land of the free
I am so glad that I am not an American.
549 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jul 2007
Modelling graph traversal on a relational system isn't really difficult, but then, writing the entire DB system in Perl is also possible, but neither is actually advisable. If you have an RDBMS problem, then use an RDBMS to solve it. If your problem is graphing relationships, then a graph database is the most natural tool to use. This is not an either/or debate.
This deal would appear to allow the UK authorities to request information about non-UK citizens (as long as they are not US citizens) if that information is stored in the US, and allow the US to request information about non-UK citizens that is stored in the UK. Anybody providing that information will have to deal with the consequences of being forced to be in breach of GDPR. This could get entertaining...
Duh, no it doesn't.
Finance depends on having an edge and the biggest edge you can have is knowing what is going to happen before the rest of the market. Traders have always shared that knowledge among other traders to earn or repay favors. Before phones were invented, those back channel communications took place in coffee shops which is why financial institutions are packed so tightly together into places like wall street or the square mile.
What utter nonsense. Programmers then were the same as programmers now; some good, some bad, some lucky and some clumsy.
C was designed to solve a set of problems that had no other easy solution in the early 1970's. It was easy to learn and easy to use and you could get something working quickly so it became popular.
Rust was designed to solve problems that didn't exist in the 1970's. It is not as easy to learn or use as C and it takes a little longer to get something working, so it will never be as popular as C, but if the problems it solves are ones that concern you, then it will repay the extra effort required to learn to use it well.
Personally, I find I can solve most of the problems that matter to me most easily using Python, but when the occasion demands, I will and have used most other languages
Exactly who is this change supposed to benefit? Lose the adequacy agreement and the UK loses access to easy data exchange with the EU, on the other hand, it means the likes of Facebook can do whatever they want with data about UK people. Cambridge Analytics MkII?
I would suggest that someone takes a very serious look at who is lobbying whom and how much they are paying, because this stinks.
I am afraid that you don't seem to know very much about how cell towers, communications or telcos work. You aren't a politician by any chance? The telco buys the gear and installs it in base station at the foot of the cell tower. Huawei don't choose who buys their gear, Huawei don't choose where it is installed, and Huawei doesn't pay for the juice it consumes. Double the data and you double the juice and yes, the telcos would notice, and no, you couldn't slip an extra power supply in there, telcos would notice that as well. Also, since telcos haven't been allowed to buy Huawei gear for quite a while, these towers must have been installed quite some time ago.
MaCarthyism is alive and well in the land of the free.
Does this actually count as theft?
Stop laughing and think for a minute. The 'rightful' owner of the crypto currency token is which ever wallet it is registered with in the blockchain - if the blockchain is updated so coins that were in your wallet are now in my wallet, then the coins that were yours are now, legitimately, mine. You might argue that the blockchain update was not correctly authorized, but you can't say I 'stole' your coins.
Most of us are lucky enough enough to live in societies that have a legal system based on "innocent until proven guilty", unfortunately that belief belongs to a time when a stranger was simply someone you didn't know yet. Modern society, particularly in the UK and the US has shifted to believing that a stranger is a threat and that is incompatible with the presumption of innocence. If you are innocent, then nobody has a right to intercept or interfere with your communication. If you are a threat, then the state must protect itself from you by any and all means available. So, which society do you want to live in?
"One of the joys of academic research is that if you do it right, you can prove the truth". Sorry, but that is not how science works.
One of the joys of science is that anyone can prove something is false, but nobody can prove it is true. We can say our theory for how we think something works and we can present loads of evidence supporting that theory, but if anybody, at any time, finds a single piece of evidence that our theory can not explain, then we have to go back to the drawing board. It doesn't mean the theory is no longer useful, but it is not the "whole truth" and it might be false. Newtons laws of motion are the perfect example. His theories provide a simple and complete explanation for how things move, and they cover every possible situation - unless they move very, very fast or are very, very small, when Newtons laws give the wrong answers and you need to use the theories of relativity or quantum mechanics to explain what is happening.
"Google knows what every byte of that data is, and what it's used for." Now that is hooey. They collect the data because it is there and can be collected. They have no idea what most of it means or how it can be used, but they are afraid that if they don't collect it they might miss out on something that later proves to be important.
A task that took 18 hours twenty five years ago, which could be halved every 18 months for a near constant £1500 by the application of Moore's law, made upgrading worth every penny. Twenty five years later the same Moore's law means the same task takes under a second, so it is much harder to justify an upgrade to reduce the time to half a second.
The American political system requires a 'them' to give the people someone to be afraid of. It happens to be the turn of the Chinese to fill that role. Do you not think that if they had any actual evidence of wrong doing, it would be splashed all over the front page of the NYT and the lead story on FOX and CNN?
That's exactly what I said and I got a bunch of down votes. Regardless of how scummy you think Google et al. are, this case was not about altruism or defending the poor and downtrodden. It was wasting the courts time in the hope of a big payout.
A lot of the outrage here seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that people think they own their phones. At best, you have a license to use the physical manifestation of it. The OS, the apps, the infrastructure, and all the things that make the lump of plastic and metal useful, belong to somebody else, and yes, they can do what they like with it. If this angers you, don't take it out on me, just go back and read the terms and conditions that you accepted.
I remember Perl. I remember once patting myself on the back and thinking just how clever I was for coming up with a really cool solution to a nasty little problem. Unfortunately, when I went back to it about six months later it looked like a puppy had puked in my editor. I had no clue what it did or how so I had to start again from scratch. I don't think I have actively used Perl in the last decade or two. It had a good life, now it is time to let it die with dignity.
You haven't changed the motivation to attack computers and you haven't changed the motivation to protect them. All your proposal achieves is to give a minister the power to take someone off line. As for the idea that extending such powers is fantasy, I suggest you read up on RIPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000#Agencies_with_investigative_powers