Re: Why would anyone leave these turned on?
"If you have teenage children, you may sleep better knowing that they can reach you."
You can turn off your mobile without turning off the land-line. You already turned off your land-line? Your choice.
42273 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Is there anything in this that prevents anyone who wishes to deliberately plant malware in a repository from adding a --provenance flag? Granted it would be very naughty but anyone deliberately sneaking in malware is already being very naughty so a bit of extra naughtiness isn't going to worry them.
It doesn't even have any idea about what it should be doing even when there's a documented standard such as an RFC.
I asked it to produce Pascal code for generating UUIDs to see if it would reproduce the Free Pascal unit (I've noticed the unit's initialisation for a pseudo-random node for variant 1 value misses out on a minor detail which might have been a give-away).
After some wrangling to persuade it I wanted a variant 1 as well as a variant 4 it eventually produced code for, allegedly, both variants. I didn't try to follow what its supposed difference between the variants was but one thing was quite clear: there was no trace of the supposed variant 1 being in any way time based.
This, I think is the problem. He sees the users as his customers, not as his product. The tick-selling seems to confirm that.
Advertisers seem to be treated as someone along for the ride and if they don't like it they can just hitch a lift elsewhere. When even I start feeling sorry for advertisers things have got really bad.
He made money by having people make something customers wanted to buy.
Having so much money has detached him from reality. He's forgotten that he still needs to provide something that customers want to but. Either that or he hasn't grasped that his customers are the advertisers. In fact, given that he's trying to flog multi-coloured ticks to users, the latter is probably the case.
"it worked for me and I received an excellent education"
An "excellent" education now involves learning how to use Microsoft Office so as to fit pupils for the modern workplace because that's what's expected of educators. Those funny old books? It wouldn't be excellent by today's standards.
"So then ask when they last did a long multiplication sum. Or added some fractions."
They may well use calculators to do that today but they'll have had to learn to do it manually in school, long ago. It's that manual calculation that gives some insight into what's happening. Without that the symbols on the keyboard and in the display are just peculiar squiggles. Learning to distrust electronically produced numbers is an essential part of learning to understand them.
It's all very well repeating the old joke about standards but where naming is concerned it seems likely that an agreed standard is needed, it's jut no likely to come from a unilateral attempt,even if Microsoft has form in trying to concoct standards to suit itself.
Botany had the same problem until Linnaeus came along with a systematic convention. Even so his binomials needed to fit into a larger hierarchy. (And zoologists seem to have been keen on throwing in the occasional trinomial.)
" It's the harm, abuse and criminal behaviour that happens behind closed smartphone apps that is, with the tech firms carefully and mathematically provably looking the other way whilst it happens."
The smartphone apps are simply a way of criminals communicating, not of being criminals in the first place. They're criminals. They're already intent on breaking laws. It's sheer folly to believe that you'll inhibit them from breaking laws by either giving them more laws to break by installing illicit apps or do more than inconvenience them by making then communicate by other means.
With that, the lack of upside out of the way, let's look at the downside.
The criminals are in the minority. It's maybe difficult for those whose job it is to investigate crime to get their heads round* but it is so. The majority of app users are not only innocent but have a right and a need to communicate securely. People not only have things to hide, they have things which they are obliged to hide. If you don't believe me look at the T&Cs that you happily clicked through when setting up some perfectly legitimate online service - such as your bank. If you don't find a requirement to keep your password secure somebody has been negligent; but that, of course, is just a trivial example.
If you use a smartphone for work any such traffic is likely to be commercial in confidence at the very least. For someone like my daughter, working in clinical trials that's also a trivial aspect; her communications will very likely have information which concerns patients' personal and medical information covered by a slew of regulatory and statutory restrictions. The data may also affect the sales prospects of her company's clients' products and therefore their stock prices and so is also subject to financial regulatory concerns. Oh, and jI forgot to mention, not only does she have to communicate with the actual medics looking after the trial subjects, her employers are multi-national and almost 100% remote working so online communication is the very foundation on which their biusiness operates. Of course her company's communications need security - it would be stupid to think otherwise. And yet it's proposed to make it impossible to give them the legal protection that legal requirements demand.
And similar concerns apply more widely. Now go back and re-evaluate your communications security needs. They might not be exactly the same as my daughter's but they're likely to be there, might be equivalent and you'll certainly not need to look very far to find others to whom secure communication is essential for their legitimate employment.
That's why tech firms are "carefully and mathematically provably looking the other way". They have to.
* Very many years ago that was my job and even today I will sometimes look at something and realise how it might be a scam, or could be used for one.
The answer to that is to forcibly install a scanner on your device (see the hoo-ha about doing this on iPhones a year or so ago). Not all devices are phones so that will have to apply to PCs as well. Of course the scanner will only be looking for Bad Stuff so that's OK. And it really won't be gobbling CPU cycles like 3 anti-virus scanners all running at once so that's OK. And there'll be no possibility of a supply chain attach that might let it steel banking creds so that's OK. No, nothing to worry about at all.
Variation:
1. Council tar & chips entire road, potholes and all, sealing bottoms of all potholes
2. Eventually council fills potholes with asphalt.
3. Water gets underneath asphalt but can't get through the tar seal
4. Water freezes, loosens asphalt which is then worn away
5. Council does it's usual thing: nothong