Re: No technical information
Why do you assume that they know what is wrong? Banking is not a profession that typically attracts humanity's finest minds. It's not like bookmaking or counterfitting where penalties are exacted for sloppy work.
851 posts • joined 13 Sep 2017
"What the hell are those guys gonna due when cut loose from the Japanese office culture."
Just like the US, UK, Australia and Canada. They'll log off their computers at 1700 and join any of the neighbors who feel so inclined (most of them probably) at a local watering hole. Their wives will then breath a sigh of relief at having their husband out of the place for a few hours and go off to socialize with the neighbor's wives.
I am sure it's possible calculate position based on a signal from any three Sat's
Four, I believe -- you're working in three dimensions. But it's early here and I'm not as smart as I thought I was in the 1960s when I actually knew a little about some satellites. Anyway, I think that "all" that is needed in concept is a bunch of satellites with extraordinarily accurate clocks on board, a tracking network that can keep track of their positions with very great precision. And an impressive amount of money. That'll get you position determination within a few tens of meters. Good enough to get you or your vehicle from place to place. For precision much greater than that I believe one needs reference stations that can be used to compute very accurate current ionospheric and tropospheric delays for each satellite. Or perhaps other clever gadgetry. Lots of very smart people have spent a lot of time and effort figuring out how to do satellite position determination. I'm not one of them.
"Though I wonder if there isn't a way using something other than IR to see "through" masks to the face underneath..."
For some reason that immediately triggered a mental image of a long flexible tentacle reaching out of the phone, lifting the mask aside momentarily, then tucking the mask back into place and retracting into the phone. Too much bad Fantasy/SciFi TV I suppose.
Of course, conceptually, they could offer the user the option of a phone with no charger or headset, or, for a bit more, the "Executive Package" that includes both. But that might strain the mental limits of some of their customers -- who are, after all, a cross section of humanity -- more than a bit.
Sounds like after a mere two decades, the MSDOS UNDELETE command has been summoned back from the dead. One wonders if perhaps some other questionable improvements inflicted on Microsoft users over the years might someday be reversed.
I suppose there's no chance that the $#@&$ Registry will be replaced by less user antagonistic control structure(s)? That's probably too much to hope for.
Is that my fault?
Absolutely your it's fault. AFAICS, most "solutions" to Internet security involve either blaming the victim, and/or insisting that some incredibly complex sequence of activities will provide perfect security and can't possibly fail. You're clearly the victim. You must have done something wrong you dolt. Shape up.
(I do think that some day -- probably decades from now -- we'll have a reasonably secure digital universe. But think that it very likely won't look much like what we have today and likely not much like what we envision today.)
Apple is the only very large US corporation that doesn't have links to the US military
Indeed, it'd be interesting to know if the Chinese have a list of corporations with ties to the US Military Industrial Complex. And if so, who is on the list.
I'm also curious if there's actually something special about Huawei that makes it such a frequent target of Donald the Useless and his minions. Could be. But I can't help suspecting that somewhere in the vast criminal conspiracy that is the Trump administration some person or persons are somehow profiting bigly from the US beating up Huawei.
"Why Didn't they put in on the top?"
The two things that come to mind are:
1. Landing on Mars is quite difficult. Fewer than half the dozen of so attempted landings have been successful. They very likely put the helicopter experiment where it would be the least problem during descent.
2. This is their first attempt. If their aircraft fails during its initial flght for some unexpected reason, they probably don't want it to drop onto their rover.
It's a neat idea. I wouldn't have thought it to be practical. Good for them.
I agree that downloading code from some dude's server in God knows where, then executing that code is utterly incompatible with user security. Three problems however
1. Some useful services like interactive maps currently can't work without scripting. Interactive map, etc APIs would have to be defined and implemented in browsers before scripting can be killed.
2. There is perhaps some case for scripting of content presentation as opposed to tinkering with operating systems interfaces. Granted, the current results seem generally to be annoying at best. But they are what "customers" (guys who pay directly) as opposed to "consumers" seem to want. Personally I could probably get by in a world where stuff I don't want to see is never arbitrarily superimposed over whatever I'm trying to read based on my mouse position. But maybe everyone else loves that. Anyway, I think that in concept at least, presentation scripting could be implemented with few or no security issues.
3. Advertisers love scripting. Companies like Google will probably try any number of ill conceived schemes to accommodate the guys who pay the bills no matter what the risks to consumers of the product. After all, scripting is not a risk to either Google or the advertisers. Just to the product -- thee and me.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but in this case, I think all that is necessary is for you to visit a website crafted by a really talented hacker. The website can promise to regrow hair, smooth out wrinkles, serve up free world class porn, earn you money at seven times the prime rate or to grant you eternal youth. It doesn't have to deliver any of those things.
Would be interesting to see how well that patent is worded.
It's a patent. It'll have been created by professionals to be both completely incomprehensible and incredibly broad. Probably could be interpreted to cover anything from putting detergent in soluble pods to ordering books alphabetically on bookshelves.
I read much of the Ninth Circuit's opinion. It's actually quite well written considering that it addresses material that is stunningly dull. It's unclear to me exactly what the details are here. But it appears that Altera shifted stock option related obligations around between entities they control in such a way as to somehow minimize taxes. What seems to be at issue is the extent to which the IRS can undo that. And the answer is that the Ninth Circuit feels that IRS doesn't have to treat transactions between wholly owned entities the same way as it would transactions between independent companies if it determines that the only reason for the transactions is to hide taxable activity.
Or maybe I have that all wrong.
It's probably obvious. But not to me. Why is stock based compensation taxable to the corporation rather than the employee who receives it? It sort of sounds like the IRS is saying that the costs of paying employees in part with stock options aren't legitimate business expenses. Maybe not. But it'd be nice to have an explanation of why not.
Let me see if I have this straight. The Chinese are thought to be using their no doubt extensive and sophisticated cyber warfare capability to target ... banks? The Australian military? The Australian power grid?
Nope. They're out to batter an Australian brewery into submission???
Well, maybe. ... Are there are tanker loads of Tsingtao beer hovering in the Pacific just beyond the reach of radar from Brisbane, Newcastle, and Sydney waiting to sell their product to thirsty Australians at extortionate prices?
I mean what the hell is Microsoft doing to break printing? Printing across multiple devices from multiple manufacturers using a plug-in device driver model was pretty much sorted out and working by at least 1990.
In 1990, most printers just printed ASCII text dumped through a PC serial or parallel port. Configuring/wiring serial ports sometimes required black magic, but printing per se was mostly pretty simple.
We've fixed that. Almost all printers nowadays are image printers even when the information being printed is text. And there are a number of possible complicated, not interoperable, image formats. And printers are networked. With different complex, not interoperable, protocols on different ports. Far from becoming simpler and fully automated (it just works) printing has become extraordinarily complex. It might work ... on good days ... if you refrain from conduct that annoys the printing Gods.
The situation may well get worse if "improvements" in printing continue
Seriously -- when I last worked with classified material back around 1990, the CIA breach would probably have been impossible. Their computers would have been in a secure, probably EM shielded, "vault" connected to the outside world through some sort one way firewall that didn't allow ANY information out. Only IN. And yes that was (more or less) possible back then. So it doesn't surprise me that CIA workflows evolved that were oriented toward getting some work done occasionally rather than toward securing information. And yes, DARPANET was around back then. I even used it a few times. But only from computers outside the "vault". The local security lady would have organized a firing squad if anyone had connected a PC with information classified at any level to a phone line.
Trouble is that the modern internet doesn't seem very compatible with the concept of secure vaults. I don't know how the problem of preventing information from leaking out of secure facilities while still allowing information in and while getting a bit of work done from time to time has been solved. Badly it would seem. However, it seems to me to be a VERY difficult problem. Pragmatically there may not be a solution. To the extent I've thought about it, I think that trying to secure massive amounts of data accessible from anywhere in the universe with encryption and convoluted authentication schemes is unlikely to work very well. It's probably better to cut the amount of information that needs to be secured to an absolute minimum and to keep that information off public media to the greatest extent possible. It'll still leak a bit I think. But maybe not so much.
Uncle Sam's snoops lost control of at least 180GB of hacking tools and documentation
Documentation? The CIA documented their tools? The irresponsible fools. If they'd followed standard industry practices and documented nothing except a few preliminary concepts that were discarded about three weeks into the project, Wikileaks would still be trying to figure out what the 180GB mess does. And How it does it.
What sort of people work at a fab? All sorts apparently. Two or three decades ago IBM's semiconductor fab in Vermont was the largest manufacturing facility in New England in terms of people employed. Everything from highly skilled chip designers down to high-school drop outs trundling materials around the (vast) factory. Problem was, it wasn't profitable. IBM ended up paying Global Foundries a couple of billion dollars to take the plant, its staff, and a bunch of future obligations related to the facility off their hands.
Why would one ask the FCC about communications? They can't even keep track of US broadband speeds. And their track record on real undertakings like preventing robocalling is dismal. Their forte seems to be doing press conferences and routing taxpayer money to large corporations to pay for services to American consumers that will never actually be rendered.
If you want to know about Chinese Telcom intelligence gathering activities, I think you might do better to ask the CIA and or NSA. They may or may not know something. And they may or may not choose to divulge what they know.
I think perhaps we're confusing ourselves a bit because of the word "drone". I suspect what is being proposed here is not a rather clunky human controlled surveillance vehicle with a bit of armament attached. Could be. But maybe not. Neither is it a full fledged fighter with HAL or Clippy in the pilot seat.
I suspect what will actually be involved is more like a very smart, reusable, Surface to Air Missile with some high level human control and the capability of returning to base if a target can't be acquired. Such a vehicle doesn't have to win every fight with an F35 or A10. Or even most of them. It's likely to be an order of magnitude cheaper to build and (at least on paper) much easier to deploy and support.
"Chips are made by machine not hand."
Yes, they are made by machines. But the IC toolsets are extraordinarily complex. And the machinery often requires reconfiguring between production runs. Lots of support troops. Not just a few folks hustling chip trays around clean rooms and slapping shipping labels on cartons of chips. Lots (hundreds) of engineers, mechanical specialists, etc,etc,etc. And the production lines seem to be in a constant state of flux.
I've never been closer to a semiconductor fab than the parking lot. But what I saw from the quite large parking lot was a VERY large factory with big chemical tanks, a railway siding, and lots of ancillary office buildings (plus more offices in trailers in the parking lot). I was particularly impressed with a row of about half a dozen detached-garage sized squirrel-cage blowers awaiting installation. A serious industrial facility -- comparable to airframe manufacturing facilities that I've worked in in the past.
I think that if you're going to manufacture a full range of complex semiconductors, you really are going to require massive facilities staffed by tens of thousands of highly skilled individuals.
China's respect for Intellectual Property laws tends to be a bit "flexible", so I imagine they might make x86 chips for domestic consumption. Probably there will be implementation details that differ and some attempt at "clean-room" implementation so that generations of lawyers can argue over whether or not the Chinese versions are legal. Traditionally Intel has sued everyone who challenges their monopolies. But I'm not sure that taking on the world's largest or second largest economy in its own courts is going to look like a brilliant strategy. Time will tell.
Here's a probably relevant link, but its kind of elderly. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective
"Which gives the likes of Intel and Samsung ten years to figure out what happens once the China market disappears."
And roughly eleven years to figure out how to deal with Chinese competition in non-Chinese markets. Less than that really because semiconductor fabs are, I'm told, rather specialized, so China will presumably reach 100% plus domestic capacity in some types of semiconductor before the decade is out and will, one assumes, start selling their excess product into overseas markets.
The awesome and all-knowing internet informs me the batteries for Electric bikes weigh in at 3-6kg. Presumably you could just unplug the battery and take it in to your residence at night to charge it. That might actually work in Southern California where I grew up and maybe in England. However, I would envision a likely marketing problem in winter in Vermont where I live now as well as in Canada.
Afterthought: There actually would seem to be a use case for an internet connected refrigerator with a temperature gauge and internet alerts if the temperature goes out of range. But most people who would be interested in that probably need a fridge capable of storing 20000 kg of frozen shrimp. And they probably expect the alarm to just work. For about 40 years. And they probably have no desire whatsoever to have the vendor or anyone else "supporting" the software/firmware in the alarm remotely.
Until you can no longer buy a dumb fridge.
That's the problem. Here in the US, it appears to be impossible to buy a dumb TV nowadays. Instead, every TV at Best Buy, et. al. has a bewildering array of mostly confusing and totally unstandardized options that even computer literate folks have difficulty negotiating. The misbegotten things take forever to turn on, require three or four actions to get a picture. And God help you if you push the wrong button.
Picture quality is great. The rest of the user experience makes one long for the 1970s. (And, yes, we had wireless remote channel selection and volume control in the 1970s).
There are reasons for all that. But as far as I can see, they have little to do with what users would actually prefer.
"All these "smart" devices are basically shit"
Maybe not the words I'd use. But I agree with the sentiment. The only "modern" device that we have added in 30 years that works noticably better than the mid-twentieth century stuff it replaced is a covey of Panasonic cordless phones that have replaced the dumb phone extensions. And even there, we don't use many of the capabilities of the new phones because they require entering keypad codes that nobody around here can be bothered to remember.
BTW. We networked the house decades ago (with 10-base2 originally. THAT long ago). I put a PC in the kitchen. It had hundreds of our favorite recipes. It did internet streaming. It could keep shopping lists. We were connected!!!
No one used it but me. And I didn't use it often. And mostly what I used it for was playing music. Occasionally we used it to Google something that came up in discussions in the adjacent living room. That's about it. When we rebuilt the kitchen four or five years ago, we didn't allocate space for a computer. Recipes are in a notebook. Shopping lists are on 3x5 cards in a holder attached to the fridge with magnets. If anyone wants music in the kitchen, they find a laptop and bring it in.
Consumer grade appliances are trash, with no longevity and (usually) no repair options.
Ahem ... NO That's not my experience at all. Washer, Drier, Refrigerator, Oven, Mixer, Food Processor, Dishwasher. Even the Microwave Oven. All repairable and all have parts available either from the manufacturer or from third parties. I was even able to buy and installed an icemaker in the fridge which my wife for some reason bought without one.
I would agree that connected digital devices offer manufacturers an opportunity to apply our appallingly low standards of software quality to our household appliances. I personally think that -- like much else in our world -- is a really silly idea.
It's a refrigerator. It keeps things cold. Why would it need a network connection?
"It was, at least from RFC1933 (April 1996). I used exactly that method until my ISP supported native IPv6."
Thanks, I read through most of the RFC before thinking to check the status which turns out to be obsoleted by RFC2893 which was in turn replaced by RFC4213. Overall, the RFCs seem quite sensible. Two things I'd comment on.
"The mechanisms in this document are designed to be employed by IPv6 hosts and routers that need to interoperate with IPv4 hosts and utilize IPv4 routing infrastructures. We expect that most nodes in the Internet will need such compatibility for a long time to come, and perhaps even indefinitely" (RFC1933,RFC4213 both p2)"
I read that as saying it's perfectly OK for us Neanderthalen who for any of a variety of reasons don't or can't do IPv6 to stick with IPv4 forever if we so choose.
"Specified minimal rules for IPv4 reassembly and IPv6 MRU to enhance interoperability and to minimize blacholes." (RFC4213 p23)
I'd be a lot happier if that said "eliminate" rather than "minimize". I have long suspected that blackhole routing is at the root of many of the mysterious problems that affect digital communications. It's not easy to diagnose, and very few people even know it exists.
Not wanting to pick a fight either. But I reckon that I -- and probably others -- had always assumed that IPV6 devices come with a built in unique address and that the unique address would be propagated (hopefully fully transparently) to everything in my network which would then just work. I might (probably would) have to conjure up some new firewall rules and maybe replace an old box or two. But aside from configuration being a PITA and needing a bit of budget, nothing much would change.
So when I saw your post, I said to myself SLAAC. Self, that must be how they make it all play together. So I Googled SLAAC and found a lot of stuff like this. https://www.hpc.mil/program-areas/networking-overview/2013-10-03-17-24-38/ipv6-knowledge-base-infrastructure/dhcp-on-ipv6-networks
My initial take. I'm nowhere near smart enough to make that work on anything but a trivial network. And neither are most other folks. No damn wonder folks aren't embracing IPV6, the damn thing looks like a booby trapped porcupine. You'd have to be both arrogant and crazy to try to grab hold of it. Especially in a typical non-gold plated working environment with diverse legacy equipment, limited budget, and folks wandering in with all sorts of stuff that needs to connect temporarily or permanently to the network.
What are the mitigating factors? What am I missing?
If you have $400,000 or so laying around and a REALLY long driveway, these folks MIGHT be able to sell you a flying car of sorts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia_Transition
... Or not ... They've been a few months away from delivering a product for a decade or so. Their concept seems doable and their prototype actually worked. OTOH, they still aren't shipping product.
While I can't see any benefit whatsoever for most users in transitioning to IPv6, I'm told that IPv6 has much better routing algorithms. So if my ISP wants to somehow bridge my IPv4 traffic to IPV6 in the outside world for their own convenience, I guess that's sort of OK. But how do they keep from breaking ICMP(and thus Path MTU Discovery), traceroute, et. al.? I don't know. I don't care. As long as they don't make it my problem.
"We're told that we absolutely have to move to IPv6 because of the Internet of Things -- billions of device that all have to communicate with each other."
Explain to me again why I would want my garbage disposal to be able to talk to a garage door opener in Bangkok. Or to anybody else for that matter. I'm a bit hazy on that point.
Come to that, I'm pretty sure I don't want the electronic junk around here talking to or being talked to by ANYONE without adult supervision. And I sure as hell don't want it loading "improved" software or firmware on its own recognizance.
Moore's law is just exponential growth. It's probably best stated as "a lot of things tend to grow at a constant rate ... until they don't." If you want an equation, try X = R^T where R is a growth rate and T is a time. For Moore's Law -- the growth in the number of "transistors" in a given area of an IC, R is about 1.414, so that for time (T) = two years, X=1.414**2.0 = 2.0. i.e. doubling in two years.
What about "... until they don't". Well, things genuinely don't grow exponentially forever. But feature density has managed a pretty good run -- 60 years. Will it continue? For How long? Who knows?
"HTML has NO PLACE in email"
Of course not. When html email was "invented" about two decades ago, many folks pointed out that it was going to be a security nightmare. Sort of like teaching useful trades like gunsmithing, knife making and locksmithing to prison inmates. They were shouted down of course. HTML email is cute, possibly has a bit of utility in a few cases, and, what could possibly go wrong?
My concern is that in the broad scheme of things, HTML email is a minor contributor to the massive fragility of the "internet". We live in a world that is suffering severe economic dislocations from a disease pandemic that is really rather mild as such things go. I don't mean to trivialize COVID-19, but it's surely not going to, for example, wipe out half of humanity. But it's become a serious problem.
Have a nice day folks. Party on!!!
"Am I incorrect in thinking you could get pasted up the wall of the capsule if something goes wrong?"
If anything goes wrong with a hyperloop vehicle traveling at speed, passengers will probably be reduced to a thin scum of organic material so quickly that they won't even notice there's a problem. Might want to get your will up to date before embarking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020