"Not that there's anything wrong with that."-Seinfeld
Wiener
bicoastal
bipartisanship
"swung the other way"
273 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Sep 2015
After chewing on "Emerdata" for a bit, I have to say that I do give them props for the name. It fits so many descriptions that it ought to have its own Reg poll. I nominate the first few choices of:
* EMERging from the ashes of our own corpse
* EMERgency corporate rebadge
* EMigratE youR personal data
* Em er a tough un, da ta think?
It is definitely too easy and exactly the technically legal but morally bankrupt move you would expect from Cam. Anal. This does raise an interesting question of legal / financial defense. If you do something so horrible that you are guaranteed to suffer numerous fines and class action lawsuits, are you truly protected from the cost by declaring bankruptcy and selling all of your assets to your own clone?
I mean sure, for PR, it works to nuke yourself as a sacrificial scapegoat and try to hide that you are "starting over". (With all of the same assets.) Even through any losses in doing so, it probably is a much lower loss than what the future would hold for them as a company if they tried to fight it out. But does it protect you financially from liabilities? Legally?
If beyond a reasonable doubt it continues to walk like a goose, honk like a goose, and $#!7 like a goose...
I'm not surprised that it was so difficult to see helium atoms on an exoplanet.
I mean the thing about an exoplanet, it's main distinguishing feature, is it's far far away, outside of our system. In a telescope it's really teeny tiny. And the thing about a helium atom, the size of a helium atom, your basic atomic size, is that it's really quite small!
So how're you supposed to see 'em?
(And don't even get me started on black holes.)
Well gee ... now I want one!
I need it to train my grandkids. Start them off with one big joystick and one big button. Then when they have that mastered, move them up to NES standards with two big buttons and two small buttons. Then Sega and SNES. Etc.
And for PC gaming I must start them on the C=64 so that they learn the importance of patience when dealing with load time.
If we don't teach / school them, who will? (What, you expect me to get good at chess all of the sudden?)
I think it would be interesting for an actual lawyer to weigh in here. To me there are three main questions.
1. All that he did was have discs printed using the publicly available and free ISO. If a byte-to-byte comparison proves that it was legitimate software, FREE software, then to take the onus of having them printed, what law exactly is in violation to charge for a physical media representation of free software?
2. Is this truly a violation of copyright law, is it actually a violation of trademark law for duplicating the label? Or both?
3. If these discs had been provided for free, only directly with the PCs, and had used a simple generic label such as "Restore Disc", would any laws have been violated?
Yeah, I was of the same opinion. In fact I am kind of wondering why it even uses a phone at all. They need their own lens, so at that point why not just buy the camera part of a smartphone and incorporate it into the design? The processing is even done on a computer, so it's not like they needed the phone for ... anything.
And at the end of the day, you still need a small fortune in biological agents and chemicals to actually run the tests. That anyone could do. All it really is, is just a convenient base for a portable lab where a technician still has to do all of the work. (Or buy pre-prepared tests.) Kind of sad that this is newsworthy.
Now had it actually had a microscope lens able to optically recognize blood contaminants, or an array of specialized nano-particle detectors where you add a drop of blood and they bin (and thus recognize), and so your only task is to clean the "sensor", add blood, and then clean the sensor again, now you're talking interesting. But this is not that. By a long shot.
To be fair to Intel, m-a-y-b-e they have doped-up an old compound in some new way that enhances the production process or the product itself. You have to admit, they do love playing with material science. Such a change could be such a no-brainer that they fear that even with a patent on it, it could not really be prevented from being copied by competitors once known. Or some other such silly notion. M-a-y-b-e there is an almost legitimate reason for Intel to be saying, "Pay no attention to that duck behind the curtain. The Great Intel has spoken!"
What a nice sentiment. It's a shame that it means absolutely nothing.
"that’s through OEM and system integrators and key e-tailers"
And where exactly does Su seem to think that the miners shop at?
And what exactly is AMD doing to keep prices reasonable for gamers?
I generally applaud AMD, but we all know at the end of the day the money is what matters, not the hand that gave it up. Which is as business should be. But don't lie about it; just admit it.
Wow. As someone who used to own every console system he could, I fall asleep for a couple of years enjoying PC gaming, and on reading this story, had to ask, "WTF is a Nintendo Switch?" Having looked it up now, and having an answer, I still have to ask the same question, "WTF is a Nintendo Switch?"
I think the people at Nintendo have lost their minds. (They're also a little too tablet-obsessed.) I miss the days when the games were about the games, not stupid hardware gimmicks.
Continuum was quite possibly the worst idea ever over at Microsoft. Instead of making an x86 phone that could take calls and run a full version of Windows with full x86 support for all of your full applications, making a laptop or tablet completely unnecessary for frequent travelers, you have Craptinuum, the exact opposite of useful. Use your phone to replace a desktop PC ... limited to crappy little "apps" the Windows store, and no serious software anywhere in sight. You can do email, and Word. Umm ... Yay? It's just like Windows RT all over again. Surely you want more of that, right? It was exactly this kind of thinking that destroyed Windows phone. Microsoft has only themselves to blame.
This is the most significant factor. The problem is not about companies and governments holding hands across the pond. Given reasonable time, that can all be worked out.
The problem is that ICAN'T sits on is asterisk instead of doing anything, and then leaves people in impossible positions. Time and time again. This is where the culpabilities lay. This is where we need to stop feeding them carrots and start whacking them with a stick.
You want to NOT do your job for years and then forego normal process to expedite yourself out of your self-made cesspool? No. Now go do your job for real, and follow the correct protocol. And every single fine, penalty, and lawsuit resulting from the situation that you willfully made with your neglect will be awarded without question. If you can't handle that, stop pretending and let someone step in who can. Have a nice day, ICAN'T. We've coddled you for too long already.
It was bad enough when it was only screwing US citizens, but now it would seem to really be affecting everyone around the world. At the state level, you expect it. (Though it would be nice to normalize a tad more.) At the federal level however, one would expect better than this. One really wonders for just how much longer the Un-united States of America can continue to operate in this manner in today's global economy.
What I don't get is why on Earth an Aussie sheila would buy her "dark web" drugs from the UK? And using Bitcoin? Surely there were closer and safer options. (Intentionally not mentioning them.) Frankly, the exact choices disclosed sounds more like a game of Buzzword-Bingo propaganda than reality. Maybe to protect the reality. Maybe none of it was real. Maybe she really was that stupid. (Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.) Who knows? All I do know is that something smells extra fishy, and I am disinclined to swallow it.
I still want to know where the FBI gets off calling the use of basic security practices "going dark". It's not even a correct application of the old term, which describes an ominous sudden stop in communication that forewarns an event. Smashing the first two phones was "going dark". Protecting the third phone and leaving it to be found was at most a red herring, as well as "standard operating procedure". SOP for anyone with any common sense, not just crims.
So not only is the behavior of the FBI in question, and the money, and their real and/or attempted effect on law, and if they have an ulterior agenda, but I am also questioning their lexiconography.
Because, you know, priorities.
At the end of the day, if (when) AI is developed under unethical guidelines (or no guidelines at all) and Warbot 2.11 rampages, or Skynet launches its strike, etc. there's really not much merit in pointing out how you and yours developed AI under ethical guidelines.
Whereas when GM foodstuffs are not wanted, all that you have to do is not import them, buy them, etc.
Kind of maybe just a tad bit different in the end results and what you can do about them should things Go Bad. (Unless GM foods go in the direction of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" bad.)
So, sure, let's develop AI under kinder, gentler, ethical guidelines. Brilliant notion. I would have done it myself anyway. Shame it means absolutely nothing.
Now I miss my Nomad! (I wonder whatever happened to it.)
I think I will need to pick up a Lazy Susan at a garage sale for the collection of these mini retro consoles. (Or a Sit 'n Spin.)
Here's hoping the Sega isn't just an emulator. Has anyone contacted Mattel about the Intellivision? Atari?
I wonder how difficult it would be to write new content... New old content? Err ... actually, opposite of "new old stock", so maybe reverse that to old new content? What is the phrase for new software on old old old hardware?
And in other news, people be cray-cray.
A plethora of crap for a proposed law to extend the powers of a law that has no power to correct a law that they don't agree with. Which part of this sounds sane to you? California's tax dollars at work.
The real answer, of course, is that CA should just secede from the union and become their own country. (Whereupon they will find that no one actually misses them.)
"Im sure they could have used a version of Windows, but this way someone else pays for the development !"
And I'm sure they wanted to use a version of Windows, but they couldn't find one that worked!
(But seriously, Microsoft and "lightweight" OSes has not gone well. Phone. Arm-based versions of Windows. Et cetera. Not surprising that they had to turn to Linux for this. What is surprising is why MS bothered with an IoT base, unless this is the first step in a new direction of MS phones and tablets.)
As someone who has done a fair bit of living abroad in Foreign Language Land, I think it is quite possible that the scenario went askew simply because of a moment of confusion that had nothing to do with language. I've been there many a time myself, where my wondering things like "why the heck is he asking ME about THAT" causes people to automatically switch languages, even though language was never the problem. Because a look of confusion, regardless of the reason, creates false positives in the "Do they understand me?" test.
So I think it started more like this...
Brundlefly approaches Su, microphone in hand.
Su has a WTF moment, wondering why he has picked her out and what questions he will have.
Brundlefly sees Su's confused expression and assumes it is language that is the problem.
"Excuse me ma'am, do you speak English?"...
I say it is an American problem which requires an American-minded solution: The EU should issue a trade embargo on the USA, and every fined company should band together with one massive class-action lawsuit against ICANN to recover their losses.
It's the only thing they'll understand. It's the only way they'll learn.
Bad dog. Bad!
Greetings valued customer! We are happy to confirm that at present Skynet has no known operations involving falsified celltower-like services in the Washington DC region. If you would like to report any suspicious activity or provide information, as always, we would be happy to take your call, toll free, at 1-800-WE-HUNT-U so that we may immediately dispatch a representative that is definitely not a machine appearing to be human to collect you ...r information. Thank you for your time, and have a nice day.
Wait! That! THAT is what I want. Forget the Messy Mask. Just wire my comms system straight to the source, thanks. Can we do more research into that please? I don't mind invasive at all, as long as it's SAFE. And while we're in there, can you add a clock? Maybe a memory management tool? (But not the one from Johnny Mnemonic, thanks. How much data fits on a micro SD card these days? Why mess with meatspace.) How about FM radio? I mean if you're going to be cracking my skull open, might as well opt for all the extras in one go. But I wonder, if you upgrade to literally hear voices in your head as the norm, how do you know when you've gone crazy? Maybe that's where cyberpsychosis really starts...
But probably not in a 1-to-1 ratio. How many Coras does one "pilot" get to handle at the same time? Might be fine if nothing ever goes wrong, but sure hope the day never comes that someone attacks all Coras simultaneously. I think I'd rather my Skytaxi of Death be an oversized quadcopter drone with either autorotation or an emergency parachute (or 4), thanks.
"carefully alter the valid SAML response so that it has a stranger's account ID instead of your own, all while keeping the signature valid"
Eh? I know this is a simplified summary of the bug, but if the concept really is that simple, and multiple implementations contain the same stupid bug, then SAML folk really has no idea what security means. Because that's just ludicrous. You shouldn't be able to change one single bit without invalidating the signature. I sure do hope that the reality is a lot more complex than this sounds.
That is such a derogatory phrase! I cannot believe that Vulture Central would even dare to repeat it! It should definitely be changed to "putting unrequired but socially expected (sigh) visual enhancement on a pig." Because it is important these days to be politically correct.
I was thinking that surely a standard grounded metallic case design would provide basic EM shielding so that this kind of EM interference wouldn't be an issue.
Then I looked up pictures of the Bitmain Antminer S5 and there's your problem. It looks like its box is meant to sit inside of a shielded rack or enclosure. So running one solo...
And this being New York, I'm sure his neighbors are the forgiving sort.
Exactly. They're trying to solve the wrong part of the problem. If a settlement is "economically infeasible" to distribute to the actual people harmed by a wrongdoing, then the settlement was clearly too low for the harm that was caused and needs to be re-settled to an appropriate amount. Something which should be so obvious as to be self-evident, and yet somehow flies over the heads of so many of the people involved.
While I in no way condone criminal activity of any kind, that someone did this is absolutely no surprise. Why buy the server farm when you can get a crap-load of open crypto-milk for free? Anyone not expecting this to have already happened and will continue to happen could run for US presidency. The more SCADA sites get hacked, the more likely Those In Charge might finally cut the wires to the outside world and take security seriously for a change.
Meanwhile, I wonder how long before distributed computing hacks turn every internet-enabled lightbulb and default (or backdoor) password router into a viable crypto-cash-cow.
(And if they did, would anyone even notice?)
Someone else's hardware. Someone else's cooling. Someone else's leccy. Crap security. Likely the only people keeping the hackers out are other hackers who want the prize for themselves.
The cost and complexity to tackle a problem that almost no one is suffering from ensures that any company that does try will fail when no one bothers to write any software to support the hardware.
At best there will be one company who produces both the hardware and software per individual niche use as a single product. And even then, the cost of the niche product will outweigh the cost of inefficient COTS.
Not all ideas can be great. If / when there is a real need / demand, the market will adapt to create the solution. As of right now, this is still a solution in (desperate) search of a problem (that does not exist).
Frankly, you'd be better off bolting an M.2 card onto a GPU "video" card with a micro UPS (battery backup) to give it time to dump volatile memory to a reserved section of the permanent storage on power failure. That *might* be generic enough to attract enough niches to share it as a platform that it could almost survive as profitable, if you get lucky. But even then, I doubt it.
I am shocked. Shocked!
Wait. No. Wrong word, sorry.
I am underwhelmed!
Imagine that, yet another mobile phone that is totally useless at making phone calls. By design. I'm not sure when or why this became normal, but I do really wish we could get back to the core function of a phone being to make phone calls. That would be nice. Can you hear me now?
Call me crazy (plenty do) but randomizing the size of the privacy circle is not much of a solution either. It just means more data points will be needed to improve the accuracy. A single randomized offset of position might help, but is also dangerous to your neighbors as it just means that criminals will break into a neighbor's house. Sorry Bob and Linda. Randomizing the offset of position every time the security zone is departed will at least help, in that it will create something of a fog of uncertainty. But even then, at the end of the day, a criminal knows approximately where to attack and a simple of casing the neighborhood and following the shiny shiny home in person will reveal the correct location. Hardly a difficult task, and one they are likely to already be doing anyway to know the safest time to approach. So any attempt to improve security is still worthless.
The only safe solution is to STOP CARRYING A TRACKING DEVICE! Seems obvious, and yet...
As for Meltdown and Spectre, here's a point of elucidation for those who apparently need it: It is not just Intel. Meltdown and Spectre are both speculative branch prediction / out-of-order execution (OoOE) attacks. Meltdown targeted Intel's implementation specifically. Spectre is a broader attack using multiple techniques / variants for a more generic approach. And there's nothing preventing the addition of even more Spectre variants in the future. OoOE has been a buzzword since the early 90s, making these attacks possible on chips over 20 years old! (Assuming you can find one still running anyway.) These vulns affect pretty much every company that has ever made a CPU, ever. Yes, Intel. Also AMD, ARM-A, even PowerPC. (And potentially other less-known oldie-but-goodies like DEC Alpha, SPARC64, etc.) To perpetuate the myth that this is an Intel-only vuln, or that Intel is somehow the only company to ever implement OoOE in a CPU is just wildly misinformed. Nor was it a bad concept to fill unused execution units with future possibilities to make execution faster and more efficient. It just needs further refinement to mitigate attacks.
It almost doesn't even matter how many cores or what speed they are. For what these CPUs are intended to do, having only 32 PCIe lanes* (in theory, in practice this number will be reduced by use of builtin components) is the real joke. Intel really badly needs to work on correcting this bottleneck. It's bad enough in a regular PC, but in a server or workstation? Who cares how many threads your software can theoretically run when your CPU is always stuck waiting for the data to come in! Intel needs to stop fixing the wrong bottleneck.
There are so many problems with this survey and analysis that I hardly know where to begin. I think the largest faux pas is bunching all "developers" into one category, as if "I'm playing with my Rpi" or "I'm taking programming for my elective this semester and this project is a part of my grade" is in the same category of "I do this for a living." Of course the endless purveyors of crapware care more about usable documentation than money, because they aren't trying to make money. And it shows.
Anyone in the business long enough learns one simple truth: documentation always is and will always be horrible. Would be nice if it were better, sure, but it never is. Which is where open-source helps. Can't figure out what a function's arguments are? Or WTF an argument means and does? Look at the code! Living in a closed source walled garden? Better hope there are some good online tutorials. Because API is always poorly documented.
At the end of the grass-is-always-greener day, every garden sucks in its own special way. Where you plant your seeds is really more about what interests you than who does what better. Eg. If you own an iPhone then you're probably not going to write an Android app. And no one has a Windows phone. People tend to write software for themselves first and the rest of the world second.
Except for those who are paid to write software, which apparently this survey addressed not at all.
So the first step in luring developers is making something that people want to use. The second step is everything else. You'll attract tons of crap, but apparently that's all this survey was about.
If you want to attract QUALITY software ENGINEERS, then the quality starts at home. Lead by example. Show them you mean business. And show them there's enough market to form a lasting profitable company around.