Strong men, thin skins
Xi and Pooh bear...
Putin and Dobbie the house elf...
Trump and his small hands (plenty of blood on them though).
Did someone contradict the shite he spouts? So not fair!
330 posts • joined 25 Feb 2016
Looks like a case of anti-logic...
You want the government to control what digital platforms are allowed to post?
Sounds like you want to live in an authoritarian country, where the government controls what can and can't be said. Especially if it's criticizing the prez himself.
Somewhere like China, citizen.
The virus came from China, so it must spread by Chinese 5G. Look at all the outbreak hotspots in the US... covered by Chinese 5G and Chinese telcos.
Good ole US tech kills the virus, that's why the US needs its own equipment. Taxpayer funds must be made available for 'patriotic' companies.
You love your country don't you citizen?
Though I have my worries...
I saw Matt Hancock on the BBC news this morning, saying that all information resides on your phone until you indicate that you have symptoms, at which point your phone "pings" the phones of all of the people you might have met.
Yes, he said your phone pings theirs... all info held on your phone until you indicate you have symptoms.
Which is already bollocks. I am being lied too, and I know it. So how much else is lies?
He said if you indicate you have symptoms you get sent a test. If you show positive your phone "pings" again. Yes, pings. And all the people you met are sent tests too! Where did they get those addresses?
He said that once you test positive then all consideration of privacy goes out the window. Fair enough, you're on the NHS database. But it makes me wonder about one of the reasons behind the centralized database - so they can locate outbreak hotspots. They will already have all that information as soon as you test positive!
With adequate testing the centralized app gives you no more hotspot information. Without testing it is merely propagating hearsay.
* He's a politician, I saw his lips move.
It gets your address.
I had the misfortune to hear Matt Hancock on the news this morning...
The idea is that if you notify the app that you have symptoms then "they" send you a test. If you prove positive then they send tests to your contacts.
Clearly this is bollocks because we don't have that kind of testing capacity, but they will know who you are and where you live.
At least that's what he said...
Even Saruman objects to using a palantir!
The problem with security is that the vast majority just don't think about it. I bet most people wouldn't mind posting their "coronavirus contacts" , slurped by Bluetooth, straight onto Facebook for all the world to see.
"I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide. I'm proud to do my bit for the NHS."
Just one step away from "Don't you love the NHS, citizen?"...
"I'd post the links but then I'd be a target for the Illuminati/global Jewish conspiracy/Bill Gates' attack drones."
The point about conspiracy theories is that they can't be denied... the "well you would say that, wouldn't you?" tactic works on people who want to believe they are being lied to by the powers that be.
And why does he get a bonus when they do? Remember this is on last year's results, nothing to do with lockdown - though announced in a way that makes it look like it's an effect of the virus.
What's the point of a "long term incentive plan" If it's long term incentivization of buffoons?
She managed to trouser 2.8 million in 2015, the year that TalkTalk profits halved because of one of the cyber attacks that occurred while she was at them helm, which also resulted in a record fine for a security breach.
With performance like that she should be in the House of lords, and a non-exec director of the Bank of England...
What's that you say? Mates with Cameron?
It's just the normal consequence of small IT company with IPR selling out to big (rich) company. Of course there's a transfer of IP, it's why they bought the company!
You might want to restrict the sale of a company which is deemed fundamental to national security (not sure that Imagination falls into this category though...), but there's two problems. How do you decide who isn't allowed to buy a company (this year US good, China bad; next year?)? And how do you compensate the entrepreneurs who started the company but now can't cash in?
Because let's face it, that's the favoured business model (and one employed by Imagination itself in growing its IP portfolio).
Zoo's "end-to-end " encryption (actually client to server, but who's counting?) renders Huawei's involvement, or that of any intermediary, moot.
Curious that Zoom is a Chinese company transferring data to Chinese servers, but is considered secure enough for cabinet communication (even though we know its crypto is substandard), while Huawei is an existential threat to western civilization.
That's the problem, even the "apology " is written in conspiracy theory terms...
"Just because they don't have the evidence yet doesn't mean they won't get it someday. Though of course the state will make sure it gets buried..."
Once you pull the tin foil over your head you only hear what you want to hear.
Most encryption will be applied automatically without you needing to provide a "key". The TLS handshake between your device and the server, and subsequent data encryption, will be transparent to the user. You might need to authenticate to some sites, so you'll need a "password ", and preferably a strong one...
Same applies to streaming services. A user might see no need for strong crypto, but a provider will!
Your two retrievers probably won't keep in perfect straight line nose to tail tip formation. At which point you are relying on the other person's dogs to provide a proper exclusion measurement.
Unfortunately, dogs being dogs, the tail length becomes irrelevant as the distance contracts to mutual nose to butthole.
Never heard of a JavaCard "cardlet" (it's certainly not the English term), but I do know that each and every applet extends the javacard.framework.applet class... hence the name.
Again, it is not Java, it is JavaCard, and the VMs are constructed to cater for the vulnerabilities inherent in off-card verification and on-card execution. These smartcards undergo extensive evaluation before being allowed to host credit/debit applications.
This is money we are talking about - don't you think that Visa and MasterCard might have a vested interest in making the system a bit more secure than leaving the bank vault door unlocked?
This is JavaCard, not Java - a very different beast. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a phone's Secure Element, or a SIM card, or a credit/debit card, that doesn't use it.
However, these security "revelations" are noteworthy for being far from original. It has always been understood that there is a gap between the off-card bytecode verifier and the on-card bytecode interpreter. That's why anyone implementing the JCVM pays a lot of attention to security considerations.
The Oracle reference implementation of v3.1 is an easy target - the clue is in the name, it is a reference implementation, functionally correct but without the hardening you need for a smartcard.
And the two Gemalto products they "cracked"? Technology over ten years old (3G? we've moved on a bit from that...).
It's like sending an email to Microsoft to tell them you've found a bug in Windows XP.
So no "security storm", no rushed patches from Oracle, no new flaws, and no need for any "fixes".
P.S. I'm not a Gemalto (or Gemplus) employee (or ex-employee).
The problem is that the "representatives" are not representative, they are just the people who want to climb the greasy pole. Is the prime minister the person best suited to run the country? No, she is merely the person who floated to the top of the scum vying for the job.
That's why science and engineering are virtually ignored by UK politicians - they all did PPE or law at university and don't have a clue. While people who do understand don't want to play the political popularity contest.
Erm... this is Pai, in the pocket of US ISPs. It's not a bribe, it's "lobbying".
Also he didn't refuse the award, for "saving the internet", he just complained that the pesky ethics department wouldn't let him take the goodies. Tacitly acknowledging that he had no qualms about it himself.
I was thinking "But... but... but..." until the final paragraph: "never feed secrets as training data".
Quite, it's live data, not training data. The clue is already in the terminology.
In fact, did my sensitive data sign up to be used for training purposes? I think not.
"Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and were in communication with each other as there would be no surprise maneuvers."
On motorways maybe, but not in towns and cities when you have pedestrians and wobbly cyclists to contend with.
And on Saturday nights you'll get people thinking "That driverless taxi will have to avoid me if I step out into the street right in front of it... give the passengers a right scare!"
Or playing car snooker... "If I step out now that white car will have to swerve into oncoming traffic, forcing that red car to mount the curb to avoid a collision"
I would say that they should provide all citizens with free (well, paid for by the taxpayer) software defences. But you know they wouldn't be able to resist putting in some snooping backdoors. Who would trust GCHQ?
One idea that arose following the Kaspersky (alleged) snooping of NSA secrets was that an ordinary citizen in the UK or the US is better off being snooped on by Russians than their own government - after all, the Russians can't get to you as easily. And if they did, then killing you, zipping you up in a bag and padlocking it from the outside might make the coppers think there's something suspicious going on...
"The difficult part is actually getting the money out of your merchant account (which you have to have to get the money using card systems in the first place) before the fraud reports shut it down and refund all the cash. Turns out that isn't easy to do , which is why this isn't happening all the time right now..."
The scare stories are deliberately missing out the inconvenient fact the people aren't losing out - particularly if they use a credit card.
And I'm surprised people are saying there is no protection in the EU for using a credit card, I thought the Consumer Credit Act was an EU Directive.
If it weren't for the smallness of Mr Fermat's margins we wouldn't have a whole bunch of number theory, not least Galois Theory - even though those discoveries were obtained while failing to prove the theorem.
I wonder what advances have come from all the failed attempts to prove P=NP, or otherwise.
The Coward is right - and the diagrams show it.
The authors seem a little confused...
"it does not use angles and it does not use approximation": " A squared index and simplified values of b and d to help the scribe make their own approximation to b/d or d/b" - so did they approximate or not?
As has been pointed out, the examples are just special cases of right angle triangle ratios, only relevant when processing those triangles, or the "half a rectangle", whereas the sine/cosine/tan ratio mechanism is not restricted to right-angled triangles, just to angles. Even better if you further generalize to the circle view and bring in radians...
Then they say "The Babylonian approach is also much simpler because it only uses exact ratios. There are no irrational numbers and no angles, and this means that there is also no sin, cos or tan or approximation."
Well a 30 degree angle, which has a lovely sine value of 0.5, would have an inconvenient "ratio" expression that is irrational in any base. So much for exact calculation.
The only reason those examples are exact and don't involve irrationals is because they cannot handle the cases where irrationals are needed and so restrict themselves to a few special cases.
There's a reason why we don't do things their way, and haven't for a long time. And it isn't because the ancients had a deeper understanding of trigonometry than we do... two thousand years ago the Greeks knew you can't square the circle.
We have two mutually orbiting stars.
The first goes nova, producing a black hole at its core, blowing off considerable amounts of matter, but let's say it has mass X which wasn't too different from the original star.
The second probably has a bit of a wobble (possibly an understatement) and goes nova too, producing another black hole, let's say it has a mass Y.
The mass of the black holes isn't that different from the original stars, and they are in essentially their same mutual orbit. Suppose for some reason they slowly circle closer to each other, eventually spiralling in to collision...
How is that different from star one of mass X spiralling in to star two of mass Y?
Why do we need them to be black holes? Wouldn't two equally massive stars cause the same gravity waves that were detected?
"What seriously? I never knew that Iraq never invaded Kuwait. It goes to show you learn something new every day!"
Yes, I wondered about that too... pretty sure I remember oil fields set on fire by the Iraqis, a limited action to liberate Kuwait and some criticism that the first war wasn't prosecuted all the way back to Baghdad.
Which led to Bush the younger starting the second Gulf war to finish what his daddy started.
I'm still surprised they didn't *find* (know what I mean...) any WMD. I don't classify myself as an evil genius, but if I were to start a potentially illegal war on the flimsy basis of the presence of WMD, my first thought would be
"If we don't find any WMD then we'd better bring some that we can find."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020