Why are you going with Psion comparisons?
To me at least, the obvious resemblance is to a Nokia Communicator.
406 posts • joined 13 Jul 2007
Of tilt were enough to disrupt the operations of the machine?!
I once had an IBM System/38 (google it) fall off the liftgate on the back of a truck. The whole thing dropped ~ 4-5ft onto concrete, landed on its back.
Damage? Broke the cast alloy hinges holding the back doors in place.
Dragged it upright again. It powered up no problem and IPLed (booted) and ran just fine.
Are you serious?!
The PM's position throughout, and that of the Tory party and many of their supporters, is that this was NOTHING to do with Brexit; it was just a normal prorogation leading up to a normal Queen's Speech, and it was a complete and total coincidence that it covered a period when Parliament would have been very engaged in scrutiny of the executive, and possibly legislating, over Brexit, and it was just an accident of timing that it was for five weeks instead of the usual five days.
THAT WAS THE LIE.
It was transparently obvious to the dogs on the street that it was a lie, a complete load of cobblers, and the Scottish courts saw right through it instantly.
One the best tweets came from The Guardian's political sketchwriter:
"Amazed that so many Brexiters who insisted the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit are now adamant prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit"
I believe they hit the nail on the head with a very satisfying thump.
I don't want sycophants, and as my post makes clear, I'm not one. I've had a Samsung phone too - and the crap on that made me want to go back to the plain vanilla no frills Google Android experience.
No sycophants - but this is a bit too much like a hit piece. IMHO.
Really can't agree with the tone of this article. I'm sure some customers have had issues; I'm sure you could find similar issues with various phones from *every* manufacturer - but you wouldn't run quotes saying they 'shouldn't be in the hardware business'!
I'm not a Google fanboy by any means, and I've had a couple of issues with phones from them too. But I've had had Google phones since the very first Nexus, and I'd honestly recommend them to anyones shortlist.
They do need better international support however. Had issues with a Pixel 2 while overseas. Under warranty, no problem, they'll replace it, right? Wrong. They said sure we'll replace it - when you're back in the USA. But that won't be for a couple of months? Tough. They apparently have no ability whatsoever to ship a replacement phone overseas; they need to do better on the international service and support front.
We're far far beyond merely 'disgusting' which is, as you said, very subjective.
As the Chief Censor here in NZ, the video, and his 'manifesto', were "designed to inspire, encourage and instruct other like-minded individuals to carry out further attacks."
That is why they have been, rightly, banned.
"Those core staffers are split into siloed departments, and only have access to their own department's databases with every request to look outside their immediate area of work reviewed by an administrator."
"...A programmer who gets authorization to learn about the addressing structure has to demonstrate a separate need to know to learn the instruction set. The avowed aim of all this red tape is to prevent anyone from understanding the whole system; this goal has certainly been achieved..." - Internal IBM memo commenting on the security procedures for the *failed* FS project.
There may be more to this than meets the eye. Reports of multiple sightings of multiple drones, from ~9pm through to at least ~3am.
That's probably not some kid being stupid, or a prank. That's starting to look like we need to at least consider the possibility of a planned attack on infrastructure; a takedown of the airport. Maybe even a rehearsal; now imagine the same thing happening at several airports across the southeast; chaos cubed.
I found someone had made a webpage of my original usenet post documenting the procedure for posterity!
How to clear the NVRAM password on an Onyx/Challenge
By Michael Ross and Chris Patterson (MCE)
1. Enter POD mode using the debug options as documented my Ian Mapleson at:
Note that the POD prompt will only appear on a terminal connected to the console (tty1) port - the GFX display will remain blank.
2. At the POD prompt, type 'zap'.
The PROM password is now clear, you can type 'io' to start the PROM monitor, from where you can now access the command monitor, install software, etc. etc., without a password.
3. Don't forget to disable POD mode again before rebooting!
'zap' is documented in the POD prompt help screen (type '?' for a list of POD commands), but the description is something very innocuous, like 'reinitialise environment', and gives no clue to the fact that it blows the PROM password away!
NOTE: 'zap' also blows away your entire configuration. So when you go into the PROM monitor, console is set to tty1 not GFX, your boot/root/OS devices may well be wrong - my setup was defaulting to boot dksc(0,....) when the disks were all on dksc(1,...) etc. etc.
So be sure to review and fully understand your configuration BEFORE using 'zap', if at all possible (I know, it's kinda hard since you're locked out of the command monitor).
Thanks to all who helped!
Back in the late 2000s, I bought an SGI Onyx workstation on eBay. The previous owner had bought it at government auction but didn't want it so moved in on. My gain. Nice upgrade from my previous Crimson.
I had to research some pretty obscure hackery to bypass the BIOS password, which enabled me to boot single user and hack root. And what did I find? A NASA machine; from the Goddard Space Flight Center in Washington DC. And they hadn't wiped it! Judging from what I found, its graphics had been outclassed by newer machines, but they repurposed it as a server; it was full of Oracle databases, personnel stuff, and a bunch of internal websites etc. Fascinating stuff! Pic for any doubters:
Astonished they let that out without wiping it first!
How does this interact with 2FA? Is that still secure, if it's turned on?
Presumably any attempt to actually *use* these access tokens would generate a 'new login from unknown device' warning from FB? I certainly always see that when I try to login from a device I haven't used before. Is that warning a default, or something you have to set up when you configure security? I can't recall.
Greatly impressed with the Pixel 2, greatly unimpressed with Google support.
Mine, 2 months old. Just failed. Won't charge - and when I unplugged the charger cable after trying for 5 mins, the metal part was so hot it almost burned my hand. Phone very hot too, after just 5 mins attempted charge. Google happy to offer warranty replacement - but not until I'm back on US soil - 'tough, you'll have to do without a phone for a couple of months; we can't ship overseas'.
It's a fairly premium product; it deserves premium service. Does no-one in Google have the wit to stick a phone in a box and slap a shipping label on it?!
I didn't say or mean anything like that; please don't put words in my mouth.
My primary point (which I thought was obvious from the 'Canute Syndrome' opening) was the sheer futility of thinking national courts can control the borderless internet with suppression orders or injunctions. That entire concept is in its death throes.
What boots it for NZ courts to forbid NZ media (and individuals) from disclosing details of a court case when everyone else on the internet, from Baltimore to Bangalore, can publish with impunity because they're *not subject to NZ laws*? (and everyone in NZ can read the resulting publications of course).
My secondary point was to make a stand against this encroaching... balkanization of the internet. You don't like the 'right to be forgotten'? You want your search results uncensored? Just use the US Google servers - but that shouldn't be *necessary*.
I think it's a lot simpler than that, DavCraw.
The legal term for this kind of injunction is 'contra mundum' which means, literally, 'against the world'. Someone seems to have taken that very literal meaning and run with it. What it actually means in practice of course is 'against anyone within the jurisdiction of the court' - and UK courts don't have jurisdiction overseas; the wording simply refers to an injunction that applies to everyone in the UK, whether or not they've been formally served with it, as distinct from a normal injunction against certain named people or organizations.
...of what I call 'Canute Syndrome'. There isn't a little local NZ internet for little local NZ people, and courts are going to have to come to terms with that. NZ has very strict 'suppression orders' at times; not too long ago, a fairly prominent politician went on trial on certain eyebrow-raising criminal matters (historical allegations I believe) which would have been front-page news in any other country. In NZ, the entire case was suppressed; the media could only report on it in the vaguest possible terms (and without so much as hinting about the identity of the politician, or even that he *was* a politician, it was just 'a prominent New Zealander appeared in court...') thanks to sweeping suppression orders that applied before, during, and after the case.
We've seen similar stupidity here in the UK, most preposterously when the then Attorney General insisted that the injunctions issued by British courts protecting the new identity of Jon Venables applied to the entire world, and that they made it a crime for anyone, anywhere to publish any information concerning the matter - which is of course facially wrong and fractally nonsensical; how could he purport to suggest that a British court could override the first amendment in the USA, just for starters?!
(Interestingly, every time the story comes up, every UK newspaper report I've seen mentions that injunction, and continues to parrot the line about it having jurisdiction over the entire world, uncritically. I wonder why; they *must* know it's a load of rubbish!)
I think you miss part of my point.
This is a case where the company has very publicly demonstrated failure to keep some very important personal data safe; that's _why_ the story has been such a big deal.
I'm asserting that, quite apart from the general principle, such cases are ones where 'severe breakdown in trust' _overrides_ any concept of 'legitimate interests' and would (or should) allow the subject to compel the deletion of data. It's especially egregious in the case of credit reference agencies, as the subject has NO direct contractual relationship with the agency; they're not in any sense a 'customer' of the agency, and they're not free to 'take their business elsewhere' in a free market.
That's why credit reference is an example of a special case where 'legitimate interests' is (or should be) FAR less compelling even under existing law.
Well if it's possible for anyone to delete their data, the presence or absence of that data can no longer be relied upon; it'll break entirely away from the 'everyone leaves a data footprint' way of thinking that seems to have grown up with remarkably little question or oversight.
If we're sufficiently angry about this, can we tell Equifax "I don't trust you to hold my data; I require you to delete every piece of data you hold on me"?
It would seem a reasonable request in the circumstances - but is it possible? If not, data protection laws are worth very little. We need the ultimate sanction, as individuals, of being able to easily compel companies and organizations to delete all identifiable data they hold on us.
Since when does the FCC regulate satellite launches?! Wouldn't that be down to the... FAA or something?
And, there's a space treaty which has been in force for a long time and which places the responsibility for regulating commercial space activities on the country *from which they are launched*.
Americans sometimes have funny ideas about this stuff - I seem to remember a small kerfuffle a few years ago where the US purported to assert the right to regulate the sale of satellite images, even when they were taken from a foreign-owned satellite and offered for sale overseas.
You can absolutely buy foreign currency with a credit card in the USA. Just the first result:
So I don't see how, if you can buy Euros with a credit card (or indeed a bank loan), you can't buy cryptocurrencies with a credit card. It should absolutely be possible.
This kinda emphasizes the problem with cryptocurrencies at present.
It's the tulip bulb problem - by which I mean, people who bought and sold tulip bulbs had little or no interest in *flowers* or in *growing the bloody things*; they were simply vehicles for pure speculative bubble investment that had no relation to the bulbs actual utility in the real world.
Likewise, people generally don't buy cryptocurrencies to *spend* or to *use as currencies*; it's mostly pure speculation; their utility as functioning currencies is limited in the extreme.
That's a MASSIVE red flag.
What are the telcos doing to secure THEIR networks against such devices?! It's their networks that are being spoofed; they should by now have some secure authentication to ensure that phones ONLY connect to genuine cellphone towers, not Stingray and other devices of that ilk.
Google, Apple etc. moved quickly to make communications more secure after the Snowden revelations - crypto on by default, end-to-end encryption, crypto on the backbone etc. But what have we heard from the telcos about Stingray? Crickets. Why? El Reg should be asking them hard questions, and being persistent about it!
...getting the developers of - just for starters - Signal - to comply with Aussie law!
Seriously, what are they going to do? Make mere possession of software such as Signal a criminal offence in Australia? Erect a Great Aussie Firewall on the internet to try to prevent people obtaining copies?
They couldn't find their own arses if you gave them a flashlight and a map and let them use both hands *facepalm*
"Seemingly, a problem with this code causes the OS to flip the wrong configuration bit in a hardware register, and write protect the firmware's data, triggering further failures."
So is this a write-only write-protect bit? Once flipped, a few lines of C code can't simply unflip it?!
If that is the case, I could swallow a few grams of silicon and *puke up* a better design.
Have a read of this. It's long and in lawyerese but your jaw will drop on numerous occasions when you see just how breathtakingly incompetent the FAA have been in pretending they can regulate drone operations previously:
(The result of this brief? Executive summary: The FAA got their arses completely handed to them in court and their case was dismissed with prejudice; they had insisted they could ban commercial drone operations based on illegal improperly made regulations - which would still have been illegal even if properly made because they cited authority that didn't exist! They're deluded and demented; how did they ever think they could get away with this?!)
I would honestly run up the skull and crossbones and start opening gas stations with after-hours automatic pumps in more remote areas - and let the law be damned. One of those weird old laws that wouldn't actually be enforced is my bet. What on earth is the rationale behind it anyway?!
Sheesh, I remember my dad telling me about a station with an automatic petrol pump on the A9 in Scotland back in the 1960s - a long and, at night, notorious dry stretch of road in terms of petrol. Saved his arse on one occasion when he miscalculated his fuel consumption at 2am! This was in the days when credit cards were still fairly exotic and rare - so it took pound notes! If Scotland could do it 50 years ago, America can do it today! :D
"he's arguing that HIS information on how traffic and traffic signals work is just as valid as that of an actual certified Professional Engineer"
No, he's arguing - **with evidence** - that the engineers who implemented the system left bugs in it.
Are the telcos doing to protect their customers from such devices?
After the Snowden revelations, various companies - Google, Microsoft etc. - moved publicly to help protect their customers privacy from the spooks - encryption on by default, encryption on the backbone, end-to-end encryption etc etc.
What are telcos (and indeed phone manufacturers) doing to combat Stingray? The square root of sweet fsck all as far as I can see. Do they have ANYTHING, or anything in the works, to ensure that customer devices ONLY connect to, and exchange data with, genuine cell towers???
It's THEIR networks the spooks are spoofing; they have both a right and a duty to secure their networks so they can't be spoofed! But over the years since Stingray has been known about, what have I heard? Oh, crickets. El Reg should be asking the telcos hard questions.
Increasing general taxation isn't very popular - unless it's perceived as very FAIR.
Abolish fuel tax. Increase income tax fractionally to make up the shortfall. Poor people will pay less. Average people will pay about the same. Rich people will pay more. People will see the fairness in that.
I have triple citizenship (long story!) including US. The US healthcare system in a soundbite: "Never in the field of human healthcare have so many paid so much for so little" - me!
The unfairness is that it's paid by the same rate by rich and poor alike! That's not how a fair tax is supposed to work and I'm astonished so many people don't see it! Poor people should pay little or no tax; rich people should pay a lot of tax. Who would object to that as a principle? Why has it been ignored for many decades when it comes to fuel tax?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020