Not a total failure...
Seems that the Oompa-Loompa-in-Chief, Foxconn and Wisconsin Republicans got the "con" bit right.
21 posts • joined 28 Sep 2017
"Diplomats are supposed to be subtle and clever. "
Casting every employee of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a "diplomat" is a little misleading. This is old fashioned administrative ineptitude by a peon and not at all like, for example, our ambassador to Eastasia naming all his sources risking their detention, imprisonment, or worse.
That's quite a range increase: the north Atlantic is a puddle. LHR-JFK 2999 nautical miles, LAX-SYD 6507, LAX-Shanghai 5635, LAX-Seoul 5209. Even running LAX-HNL-SYD gives a 2220-4400 mile split.
Concorde's range was 3900 nautical miles for comparison. In its promotional runs to Sydney (eastwards) it needed two fuel stops and was speed limited over most land masses.
I had to laugh at the irony in, one the one hand, assuring us the data would be secure and not used for other purposes, and on the other, passing the application through the Australian Signals Directorate (think GCHQ or NSA data-slurp central) for their imprimatur. Might be completely innocent use of their IT security expertise, but it is nonetheless a great way to feed the conspiracy theories.
Win 10 arbitrarily deciding that it could not connect to drives you used just minutes ago, while still connecting to others on the same server, predates the October update. Happened to my Win 10 1803 build in the last few days... unless, of course, it is a new and exciting issue they added to the October debacle and subsequently fixed.
'Section 70 of the Act gives the ADHA discretion to release information without a warrant, if it “reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary” for law enforcement purposes.'
If I was feeling generous I might assume that any law enforcement purpose could already be covered by a court-issued warrant. However, the Act does not require a warrant for law enforcement purposes just a "reasoanble belief" on the part of the system operator. This was deliberate wording, not an accident.
More concerning for me is that only "reasoanble belief" is required to release information to "protect the public revenue" (70(1)(c)). So, when a government is looking to save a few bucks on Medicare it can trawl this information, in aggregate, for the areas it could cut with least public backlash. Or, in or targeted fashion, evaluate "suspect" citizens or groups with a view to reducing their personal Medicare or private health rebates. Even worse, "protecting the public revenue" could mean increasing the public revenue by on-selling the data to anybody with the cash. All good as long as someone at a system operator being paid by the government arrives at "reasoanble belief" when requested by the government.
"...some “super users” on its fixed wireless services are downloading “terabytes” per month. The company is considering fair-use clause in contracts (as apply to its SkyMuster satellite services) or even traffic shaping to cope."
Imposing conditions on users of a satellite service is going to help users of the congested fixed-wireless segments exactly how?
Up until now, NBN would skate away from issues by insisting that end users were not its customers and directing the problem to RSPs. NBN is now acknowledging that it has end-user customers that it can impose conditions on. I don't know if this is deliberate muddying-of-the-waters for convenience or if this guy is unaware of how consumer-hostile the organisation has been to date.
I do not bank with NAB but two of three transactions I attempted on Saturday were nonetheless forced to cash-only because the merchant was with NAB. I went to an ATM and withdrew cash. Not a big deal for me but I imagine a lot of people did this generating an abnormal run on ATMs. Restocking cash in unusually depleted ATMs will cost the ATM operators (other banks and private enterprises) something that they will not get back from NAB.
NAB best not charge businesses for depositing the cash they took on Saturday.
Surely if the Twits have an algorithm to identify a private phone number in a post then surely they can code a mechanism to either suppress the post or blot out the number before publishing it. Even if the phone number is identified by a human complaint they could simply remove the post or number.
The cynical me thinks that Twitter have either received a legal threat, or decided that this was a way to get themselves in the news again.
While we are on a spelling rant... The quoted recommendation, “clear information about the maximum attainable layer 2 speed of their NBN infrastructure/service on a per premise basis,” perpetuates the stupidity that "premise" is a single premises and not, as any dictionary shows, a statement or proposition as a basis for a work or theory. This particular faux pas is repeated a number of times in the recommendations and elsewhere in gems like "fibre-to-the-premise technology", "cost-per-premise," or "premise-by-premise basis."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020