Re: "Lightsaber"
Emmer.
42402 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"It seems to me that we in the west are perfectly happy if our data is being slurped by our own guys."
Speak for yourself.
Personally I'm fed up with being told I'm happy with this, approve that, demand something else when they're all things with which I disagree.
"Surely Virgin, Unimax (who?) and the US gov are more responsible for these phones since they actually make and distribute them."
The US gov makes or distributes phones? Since when?
OTOH I'd agree that the obvious line of attack would be those selling them, at least under European customer protection legislation. It's then up to the vendor to twist the arms of the makers.
'Even if the individual components were tested individually it still doesn't mean that their particular combination is safe - a wetting agent may, for instance, increase skin penetration of some other component.
It's amazing how much fuss they can make over putting gloop in bottles whilst saving the costs of safety checks.
"Would that be the same late capitalists that used to think routine testing of cosmetics etc on animals was a legitimate part of their business operations?"
On the other hand: It's Christmas Winterval. Here's a very expensive mixture we're selling you to give to your nearest and dearest to smear over themselves. It's so dangerous we haven't tested it on animals.
"The mere fact that the selection of adverts you are presented with in your social feeds, search engine searches and banner advertising changes over time is proof of this ongoing optimisation."
You just don't get it, do you?
To go all Bob: I BLOCK ADS.
And I HAVE NO SOCIAL FEEDS. Zilch.
Don't let this stop you telling your clients you can send me advertising. If you could your selection would undoubtedly be for those things I've already bought or stuff I don't want.
An example of the latter. If, for geographical reasons, I search for a place name, the results will be swamped with estate agents sites for that area despite the fact that I have no intention whatsoever of even going there let alone buying a house there. It's not a phrase I'd use often but I feel sorry for those estate agents who are being bilked for fees to put that crap in front of me.
"Advertisers need eyeballs, and they'll buy them"
It's the intermediaries, the advertising industry, who are the problem. The more snake oil they can sell the more money they make but that snake-oil is their "service" and the people they're selling it to are the advertisers.
John Wanamaker is reputed to have said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." If he'd been alive now he'd have loved ad-blockers because they would have solved his problem. It's no surprise the ad-industry hates them - they want their customers to keep on wasting that money.
"Users who spend most of their time in, say, Google Chrome, Microsoft Office, and some custom internal applications, may find the benefits of upgrading to Windows 10 hard to see"
These are the ones which would be easiest to migrate to 10. There are suitable applications waiting for them. Those who find the benefits really hard to see are those dependant on applications which weren't ported to 10, maybe using H/W for which there are no drivers later than 7.
"Last year, Gartner warned that the global smartphone market was actively shrinking"
I doubt it. A more appropriate phrase would be "getting saturated".
I can only image that business schools across the world are churning out MBAs who have been told that if you see sales doubling for three successive quarters it means your market is expanding exponentially and will always continue to do that.
How about an arrangement like this:
Assuming that it's technically possible to unlock the phone then for each phone an agency wants unlocking the agency has to provide the phone of one of its senior staff or one of its political masters - a public interest third party gets to choose which. Both phones are unlocked and the complete contents of the agency phone get published. What's the problem with that? If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.
The essence of Chrome-OS is that it's a thin client to work with Google's services. It makes no difference how secure the comms or the OS if that's what you're doing.
There must be a number of use cases for deploying a thin-client solution but any worthwhile ones must start with finding a remote service you trust.
"It is 2020, what was the customer data and critical systems doing on Windows boxes, rather than Linux with a snapshotted file system underpinning the storage?"
In a lot of cases I'd agree with you. That would be the consequence of running a monoculture and getting phished.
However it looks as if this was the consequence of a failure to protect their VPN against intrusion and the intruders have been able to take their time. By now they'd probably have acquired admin credentials on the Linux boxes. I doubt there's anything beyond a dumb printer in there that could be trusted by now.
"It proposes to allow OpenReach to tack on these costs before a single road is dug up"
Tack them onto what? I have a nasty feeling that those of us who live in rural areas with perfectly good FTTC services are going to get stiffed in order to subsidise FTTP for other customers whilst having an unwanted and disruptive "upgrade" forced on ourselves.
True, but if it's the latter they're burning money to do it and even if they're buying them up to replace the innovation they can't do themselves they'll smother the companies with their procedures and policies and end up still burning money but more slowly.
Is it a sign of a moribund system or simply of a moribund corporation? I'd expect the latter. At some point its products, including the IP it tries to collect rent on, become obsolete and businesses which can innovate will displace it. Behaviour like this should be a warning to shareholders to look to their exit strategy.
AIUI the actual technical contributions to RISC V come from all over the world, just as in this case. Putting it outside the US means that (a) the US doesn't actually have its hands on the |RISC V throat to choke it and (b) everybody outside the US can still contribute assuming their govts. don't try the same trick. The worst case for the foundation is that contributions stop coming from the US. The worst case for the US is the same. The worst case for non-US competitors is "meh".
Repeat that for anything else the US wants to choke.
Apropos this particular case, does it supposedly cover QGIS? The registrant for qgis.org is in SA.
If the users don't patch when they're informed then such a term would be essential. After all those users are responsible. Even the one in the twitter thread, assuming they're still with the same MSP.
The Pulse Secure response can be summarised as "You can lead a horse to whater but some of them are mules." That's the problem.