The Register Home Page

* Posts by doublelayer

11418 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018

ZIPX files that aren't: Keep a weather eye out for disguised malware in email attachments

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: There was almost a standard here

From Wikipedia:

"WinZip, starting with version 12.1, uses the extension .zipx for ZIP files that use compression methods newer than DEFLATE; specifically, methods BZip, LZMA, PPMd, Jpeg and Wavpack. The last 2 are applied to appropriate file types when "Best method" compression is selected.[27][28]". It doesn't explain how clicking on that executed an autoextractor, but maybe I'm overthinking it and people actually did decompress it with a compatible archive program and manually launched the files within. It's a little weird how many people will go to rather extreme lengths to execute code that is so suspicious. Last year, El Reg posted an article describing a partially successful campaign requiring users to download a RAR file and then decrypt it just to open a PDF, which some people in engineering fields actually did.

Privacy purists prickle at T-Mobile US plan to proffer people's personal web, app pursuits to ad promoters

doublelayer Silver badge

CCPA time?

T-Mobile clearly does business in California and has enough customers and revenue to hit the limits specified in the CCPA. For anyone having an account with them and living in California, now is the time to prepare the requests and complaints to fire at them. Maybe the enforcement of CCPA will end up working better than has the enforcement of GDPR. I won't hold my breath, though.

As battle for future of .UK's Nominet draws closer, non-exec director hits a nerve with for-profit proposal

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: To: support@ionos.co.uk

It's never too early to transfer a domain. As long as it's before your renewal period, you can transfer to someone else. I just did it, though more because the registrar in question was annoying me than their yet unannounced stance on this motion. I moved it to a supporter of the campaign. By the way, you can see a list of the supporters on the publicbenefit.uk site. There are 413 of them, but at least that's a starting point for choosing a new provider.

Remember that day in 2020 when you were asked to get the business working from home – by tomorrow?

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Hats off

That's fair, but still, it's not all that different. It wasn't unusual at that time to have a house with multiple people working, but it was typical to have a single phone line. If the companies required remote access at all, there'd be contention between the people as they used it to use any networked services and the inevitable meetings, which would have to be a conference call. They might not have to be using it constantly, but I'm guessing there would be many collisions unless the companies could provide extra lines.

Meanwhile, a lot of the things that weren't done with network services wouldn't be feasible anymore. If you could go to a filing cabinet to find a paper record in the office, it wasn't pressing to digitize that. If the workers are all at home, it would have to be digitized if either more than one person needed access to it or the contents were private enough that the one person who did need it shouldn't take it home.

You're right that I'm young enough not to have experienced that myself, but I think at least some of these statements aren't missing the point too much.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Hats off

I think most of your reasons are good ones to prove it would have been a disaster. In 2020, we mostly have internet links which can take multiple users and run multiple simultaneous services. Imagine a family with two working parents trying to get work done using a single modem. Even if you could get extra lines out there, it would be hideously expensive and require a bunch of extra provisioning. Compared to a bunch of helpdesk tickets which say "move closer to the access point and use ethernet if you have the option", it's a lot more work.

The paper issue is important too. We have a lot of stuff digitized now, which means extra work for IT, but also means we can go home without having a problem getting information to people. If we still had a bunch of paper, a lot of the workers would either need to digitize it themselves or to have a scanner and printer at each home. 90s scanners were big and inefficient, so that would have been a mess.

End is nigh for iMac Pro as Apple stops offering custom configs of high-spec desktop

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: M1x, discrete graphics, expandable memory - maybe not.

Yes, it is. I wouldn't be surprised if they implement an ability to support slower external memory, but they're going to have to work a bit for GPU support. I'm imagining an M2 with 32 GB of memory inside it for fast access but with lanes allowing more standard memory to serve as additional but slower resource. At least that's what I would probably end up doing. Let's see if they even bother. I mean they tried putting all of this in a very difficult to repair iMac, so they might not want to go to that effort just for the people who want to repair stuff.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: 5,1?

Apple has a variety of naming mechanisms which they apply to their hardware. One of them is a version number system which does use commas. Thus, the M1 Mac mini is known as Macmini9,1. Or A2348 or a variety of numbers which look like MGNR3LL/A which are different depending on what specs you chose.

Hacking is not a crime – and the media should stop using 'hacker' as a pejorative

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: I'll bite. You should be in jail.

That's not what normally happens, nor is it a problem in my mind.

"Then blackmail the company "we found a hack, pay us to fix it", which is extortion."

That is not extortion. Now there are people who will do the extortion, which looks like "We found a hack, pay us or we'll use it", but there are many who won't do that. Those who do not use it aren't committing a crime unless they have done so to find the hack in the first place.

"Or how they find holes in things, and go on to document the hole, and sell the fix, and again, describe themselves as the "good guy"."

In this case, they are probably the good guy. If your thing is flawed, and you're selling it, you are the bad guy because you're selling something shoddy and putting your customers at risk. A worse guy could come along and abuse your shoddy thing to deliberately cause harm. Someone who identifies where you failed is protecting themselves and others. As long as they don't do something to your systems to figure it out, then they haven't done anything wrong. Probing your system is a grey area. Actively entering them without permission is wrong. Reading the client-side code you sent, testing a product they purchased from you using their own systems, or entering information into fields you have sent them to enter information in are perfectly normal things they have the right to do. If they find a problem, they may try to sell a fix to you. You are under no obligation to buy it. You could find it yourself and fix it. You could have done that before you sold it too. Quite often, the ethical security researchers wait until either you have fixed the problem or you have indicated you're not going to bother before they disclose. If it's the former, then you're patched and have no problem. If it's the latter, it's a fair warning that all us customers want to know before we give money to someone who builds dangerous products and refuses to fix them.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: English is definded by it's users

How much of that documentation problem is due to people disagreeing about what a word means, I.E. gift, speak into, hack, or any of the other such things mentioned here, and how much is because they didn't bother writing it well? I have had problems with documentation, but never because I couldn't understand something they said, instead always because they didn't say something they should. "The function foo takes the identifier as a parameter", for example, is a perfectly clear bit of prose but doesn't tell me what the identifier is or how I get one. That's the problem I have. Never had confusion over a definition ruin otherwise well-written documentation.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: I'll bite. You should be in jail.

Way to simplify things to the point of incorrectness. Of course people who access the system without authorization are committing a crime. That is not the only definition and by equating everything else using the term, you are yelling at plenty of people who never broke into your or anyone else's systems without authorization.

"You also complain that you shouldn't be held responsible for owning hacker tools, merely owning the tools shows no intent you say. But we've already done this in law - you wander round with tools for house or car breaking, and the police will prosecute you for owning such tools. But because you went to college, for some reason, you feel you're above this level of scrutiny."

Wrong. If you have a tool whose only purpose is to commit a crime, then possession can be illegal. However, most of the tools concerned are not single-purpose. I am allowed to walk about with my toolbox even though I could use most of the stuff in there to break into your house. Until I do, the tools do not incriminate me.

Software useful for breaking into things has many legitimate uses. I use it to perform security scans, with permission, or to do network discovery, or to investigate what things I own are sending over their network connections. I have the right to do any and all of those things, and the tools are what I need to do them.

"And yes, removing videos about how to hack systems is a good thing. Because these people you're training don't have "good intentions" like you, they have bad intentions. Watch a hacker one day execute an fsck on a production server and tell me with a straight face that you are a good thing for the industry."

Posting information about how systems can be compromised is education. If people learn those things, they know how to test to see if they are vulnerable and secure themselves if it turns out they are. True, it can also show people how to commit the crimes, but they can figure that out anyway. For example, there are videos showing how people often break into houses so people setting up security systems know how to protect or at least monitor those typical things. Even if someone gets an idea about how to break into something by watching that, the author doesn't get the guilt for the crime. The person doing it does.

I think the primary problem leading to these incorrect statements is this:

"However, in these examples people like you pretend that they have a right to break into my house or my servers, because you tell everyone "it's not secure", like you're innocent for some reason. It was secure before you ram raided it."

All but the last sentence is correct. They found a way in, and using that is a crime. They committed a crime and deserve to get penalized for that. It is incorrect however to say that it was secure before people attacked it. No, it wasn't, because they did and succeeded. It would have been secure if they tried and failed. The major problem with that though is that not everyone who knows how to break into something is breaking into something. I did not attack your servers, though I am trained in security and know how to probe and test them. I am not guilty. I have broken into things, but all were either A) my own things or B) owned by people who specifically requested I break into them. For the same reason that a locksmith isn't a criminal, most security people aren't either.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Proofread?

In addition to that inconsistency, it might be better to post both sides together and maybe even have the two writers ask each other questions. That way, there would be an actual debate more than what we're doing here.

doublelayer Silver badge

The big book of what "hacker" means

There have been far too many definitions of hack and hacker. Here's an inexhaustive list, just to show how completely pointless any effort to force a single meaning would be.

1. Someone who breaks into computer systems. "The criminal hacked the database and dumped the password hashes on the internet."

2. Someone who builds things ignoring the conventional way. As seen in the article.

3. Someone who builds things in a quick and ugly way. As seen in the comment I replied to.

4. Someone who builds things in any way. "We need some hackers to get this app idea off the ground."

5. Someone who tries to improve on the accepted way. "Here are some suggested hacks which can speed up your work."

6. Someone who enjoys playing with computer systems. "I hacked this locked-down firmware so it supports more modern networks."

7. Someone who enjoys building computer systems. "I hacked together a bunch of components I cannibalized from some stuff being thrown away and built this cool proof of concept."

8. Someone who doesn't enjoy playing with or building computer systems but does so anyway because people are willing to pay them to do it.

9. Someone who uses an axe or other sharp tool to damage or destroy a physical object. "I hacked through the wall because the door was too strong to break through."

10. Someone who cuts a large object into smaller pieces. "I hacked apart this big chunk of chocolate so I could more easily melt it."

11. Someone who does not put effort into their work. "The writer is clearly a hack who doesn't understand how to do consistent characterization."

It's a losing battle. If we want a nice sympathetic term for something in this list, we'd better find a new word and start using that.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Too late

Sure, give can mean to provide something unwanted or the like, but it's also perfectly acceptable for the definition you've provided for gift. I give people presents which I hope will be useful and certainly don't charge for. So in that sense, give works just fine to describe the action. Not only that, but most of the times gift is used as a verb it is by something that doesn't necessarily meet your definition. I've seen it used in legal contracts for a thing which was given but wasn't requested or in marketing to describe a new offering which isn't free or permanent. So, as usage goes, they do look a little interchangeable. At least give is completely suitable as a drop-in replacement for gift when they're verbs.

Redditor thinks they have a solution to Surface Laptop 3's overheating issues: Elastic bands and USB fans

doublelayer Silver badge

Or, for half the price

People already built that into a product. Basically a USB-powered array of fans on which a laptop can be placed. They're pretty cheap. I recently gave one to a friend who insists on running unnecessarily inefficient Excel formulas that run so long that the computer gets heat warnings. Although I have to admit some of the blame goes to Dell who decided to put only one ventilation grill on the laptop and put it on the bottom surface.

A lot of manufacturers would be well-served by investigating what happens when their computers run at full power for an hour straight. Heat management is important not only for hardware longevity but also for performance. The latter can be important to their marketing. The former may not matter too much to them but does correlate with warranty claims.

The 40-Year-Old Version: ZX81's sleek plastic case shows no sign of middle-aged spread

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: ZX81 option for Raspberry PI?

I hadn't thought of that, but now you've mentioned it, I want it. Especially if the Pi can be shut down and restarted by the RP2040. The most limiting factor of the Pi for me is the power consumption, meaning I can't run them off batteries for a long-term project. Having a low-power coprocessor which could run some native code which could invoke the boot process and spin up Linux whenever I need something more complex could be really nice.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Still got one in the loft

I have some questions as someone far too young to have seen one of these. When you say "Chess in 1K of RAM", was that the computer displaying a board and letting you make moves on it, or was it actually playing against you?

Also, since this machine is the one that always gets brought up in the battle of who had the worst specs in their youth, I have a question that probably a lot of you could answer while having a similar competition. What was the most useful or full-featured program you got one of these to execute? For fairness, we'll have two categories: just the 1K of RAM or the full 16K. Most intriguing or complicated gets a prize once I've tracked you down using only a ZX81, which will probably take a while to get to read this page.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: ZX81 option for Raspberry PI?

There have been rumors about the 400 getting an 8GB option, but it depends how popular the 4GB version is. I'd wait to see if they announce it in 9 days, as they sometimes have announcements for pi days (in the MM/DD calendar that's 03/14, March 14, and in the DD/MM calendar it's 22/07), and if they don't you can make your decision.

That said, depending on what kind of hacking you're planning, you might not need very much memory. Most of the hardware-control projects using Pis are light on resource usage. Back when Pis had only 512 MB, they were still used almost always for hardware control. The increased memory is useful if you want to use it as a desktop or server with a lot of caching, or if you have a lot of data coming in from the hardware which you need to process, but otherwise you probably won't need it.

I haven't bought new pants for years, why do I have to keep buying new PCs?

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: When you say "pants",

"Back on topic in a vague sort of way: would links and something like alpine have run under DOS on a 286? or were they just too advanced. Was there a tcp/ip stack even?"

Links wasn't released until 1999, so that likely wasn't an option. According to the Wikipedia page, Lynx (not the same thing) was ported to DOS in 1994. So that probably would work except it doesn't do anything graphical. I suppose that's an option, but which would you rather do: convince a relative to buy a newer computer or endure their complaints about how the internet keeps telling them they can see pictures but all they see is text (with the bonus feature of complaining that their 286 also can't run [insert other possible software])?

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: One thing people tend to forget about FOSS.

The point is that code can become dead if things outside of it break. Just saying "duplicate everything" doesn't necessarily change that fact since not everything exists to be duplicated. For example, I know what the CPU in this embedded thing was like, at least I know the specific type of ARM and the manufacturer. I have no clue what kind of networking chip they used but maybe I could find it somewhere, and if I could find it, I don't have one. You might, but in twenty years you probably would not. It's not critical to me that I emulate this successfully, so this isn't a big problem. I'm mostly planning to hack out some parts and rewrite the rest.

At some point, Windows won't be used anymore. You could still duplicate the hardware and run it just fine though. At that point, the code would have gone out of copyright and even if Microsoft died really fast and it hadn't expired yet, there'd be no Microsoft to defend it. I would still call it dead though, because it likely wouldn't run on modern hardware anymore. The same can apply to FOSS, and therefore I think it too can die. It might be less likely to die, but the world's full of code which doesn't work anymore unless you do a lot of work to nurse it back to life. That doesn't make me anti-FOSS. I prefer free software under almost all conditions. I do so because of the benefits it provides me and others today, not because I think it will have immortality.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: One thing people tend to forget about FOSS.

On that basis, almost everything is immortal. It still exists, in the same sense that there could still be a Windows disk in 3021. That doesn't mean Windows is alive. If you manufactured an exact replica of a 2000s-era computer, the Windows disk would still install Windows. You couldn't get the update servers, so you could argue that it wasn't really fully alive, but then again you can install those from offline media which could survive, so now Windows is immortal too.

Code is only alive if you can realistically run it. If you can't run it but you can take pieces off and use those, then it is sort of halfway. In that sense, a lot of stuff we have the source to may survive a long time in half-life. Unless you can choose to run it easily, it's not alive. In that sense, the embedded software died a while ago. I don't have an exact replica of that equipment. I don't even know all the things they put in that equipment. If I did, I bet it would include some pieces they don't make anymore. If I could still build and run it on something else, it would be alive, but it won't run until I've emulated at least the I/O of the hardware it used to have and probably I'll have to do even more than that.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: One thing people tend to forget about FOSS.

Not really true. Foss will be around as long as there are people maintaining it. Linux is around because people exist to make the kernel compile on later hardware. If you have software source which hasn't been updated in years, it won't necessarily work well. I, for example, have some code which doesn't make if using the latest compiler, seems to crash when using the latest libc, and doesn't like the latest kernel. I'm trying to emulate it, which is how I found out these things. I think I can get the latest compiler to accept it by turning off all the warnings. I think the libc issue is probably a minor one due to the old networking functions it's running (oh, right, if it sees IPV6 it will keel over, there's another problem with it). The kernel issue is probably there because this used to run on an embedded device. I can dedicate a bunch of time to making this compile again, but most of it is going to be replacing old code which was probably written badly in the first place with more modern replacement code.

Don't get cocky. Everything dies eventually. IBM will die. Microsoft will die. Linux will die. The only question is how long it will survive first and what replaces it. I think several of the big components in our modern tech landscape will survive for quite a while, open or closed. Lots of it will die, but the good news is that we usually choose to let them wither, like the processors we don't need in the kernel anymore, because we have new and better things to work on.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: I hate to say it, as I don't like the way they work...

I do indeed find new things in the ribbon much more frequently than I did in the menus, primarily when searching for something that was in here yesterday, wasn't it? In general, I don't think it was that hard to pull down a menu and look at all the options. People who didn't know about a feature probably saw it in the menu as they used something else but didn't know what it was and didn't go test it when they didn't need to. They're not more likely to do that when seeing an icon in the ribbon either.

doublelayer Silver badge

How are they supposed to use those? You can't SCP files to an iPad unless you jailbreak it. They might not have a working jailbreak for the OS version it's on, and the people using it may not really want to take that risk. Also, even if they do have a jailbreak, some of them require iTunes to connect to the device so the jailbreak can emulate it. They could always try to get a different music player app which allows you to move files through a cloud account or web server, but you can't do that with the default one. As such, the complaint seems reasonable, given that most solutions that resolve it require some technical knowledge the average user doesn't really want to bother with.

UK monopoly watchdog launches probe after iOS app makers slam Apple software store's draconian T&Cs

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: The new version upgrade is free......but you need a £3000 new machine to run it!!!

As I describe above, they do it with an OS version and then tie all the desktop applications to the OS version. So it's both.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: So how is Apple supposed to pay for the App Store

Apple can run their payment system as the most popular one. Every Apple user has an account which works with it. People already trust Apple Pay to do in-person transactions too. That's a pretty good reason for people to choose to use it. Developers of apps which are currently sold normally could use the Apple payment system and not have to set up any complicated payment systems themselves. Also, Apple could continue charging developers annual fees which pay for the relatively minimal bandwidth required to send packages.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: In two minds ...

No, the 30% goes to Apple. The free apps either come from third-party developers, who get none of it, or from Apple, which wrote them to encourage the sale of their products. Apple wrote their production software like iMovie before they had an app store at all. Most free apps come from developers who are not getting anything from Apple to develop them.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: The new version upgrade is free......but you need a £3000 new machine to run it!!!

They do it all the time, although in fairness so do a bunch of other people. The workflow works like this.

1. Release a new OS version. If you try to install it on older equipment, it will refuse. This despite the older equipment not necessarily having worse specs than equipment that chooses to run. If a laptop processor is similarly fast as a desktop processor, but the laptop can't run the OS and the desktop can, they don't have a technical reason.

2. Make an update to a desktop app. If it is installed on the older OS, it will refuse to run. Even though they may not be using any features unique to the new version.

3. "the next version" of a desktop application so that it won't run AT ALL on older hardware."

4. Repeatedly remind users of the old version on old OS on hardware which won't upgrade that there is a new version just to frustrate them. This isn't part of the system, but they do it and it's annoying, so I figure I'd mention it.

Compared to, say, Windows which may not run well on old hardware but will at least try until the user gives up on it, Apple's software is effectively cutting off the users.

While Reg readers know the difference between a true hacker and cyber-crook, for everyone else, hacking means illegal activity

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Badly worded motion

"But 'hacker" does have a single meaning in the context of computers and networking, and technology in general."

No, it doesn't. You would like it to. In the other article, people listed not only "person who breaks into system" but also "person who comes up with innovative solution", "person who comes up with innovative solution with the proviso that they have to be working inside an existing thing", "person who ignores any conventional solution whether good or bad", and "person who does shoddy work which functions now but is poorly documented and will fall apart". They all thought there was a clear winner too, but they didn't agree what it was. The article itself listed that "ignores conventional solution" one as having been written down in the 1950s, so that must be the clear definition that must never be changed. Except that's not the clear definition you're thinking about, is it? Words sometimes come to have multiple meanings, and there's nothing you or I can do about it.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Badly worded motion

Both sides of the argument aren't well-argued. There is one side calling on people to go to a lot of effort to make hacker a single-meaning term which is about building things for good or ill, and another side which was supposed to argue to make it a single-meaning term for criminals breaking into computers but instead argued to just give up. If either side gets my support, it's the "just give up". Last time, I listed 11 things hack and hacker mean. People provided several more. It will never be a single-meaning word and going to effort to try to convince people to make it one is a complete waste of time and energy. Nobody's really going to get confused by "hacker" being used to mean "person who broke the law with a computer", nor will there be much problem with them understanding that it can also mean "person who built something technical without ill intent". They'll figure it out from context just like we do; now let's let them do it.

GPS jamming around Cyprus gives our air traffic controllers a headache, says Eurocontrol

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: ILS?

"Is that really the case? Every smartphone under the sun has supported simultaneous GPS, Galileo, GLONASS and BeiDou for donkeys years now, because the chips they use support all the systems together. Are avionics versions of the same tech that far behind?"

No and yes. Your phone might be able to do all four, but most phones do not. Lots of chipsets only do three of those, some are GPS/Glonass only, and the really cheap ones do AGPS which can use regular GPS but will take forever to actually get anywhere if that's all you have. In all cases, a lot of initial information comes from local towers before the location chip comes in for the fine details. The phones with all of those services enabled usually are the high-end ones or ones where the manufacturer got a nice supply contract. For context, while the iPhone 12 supports all four (plus QZSS), the iPhone 11, released about fifteen months ago, doesn't have BeiDou. Most won't have all four.

As for avionics equipment, it needs very thorough testing. Few make avionics equipment to use just one of the other services. Russia's is incomplete because they haven't replaced satellites. China's and Europe's are newer, at least in terms of whole-world coverage. Thus, if they're building it, they'll build it to use multiple services. The problem is that that equipment needs a lot of certification for safety, including the safety of all the code running on it. What will it do if GPS says one thing and Galileo says another? What if an entire satellite system can't be seen for some reason, either equipment fault or someone flipped a power switch? These situations need to have regulatory approval, meaning that they're only likely to get into new planes. There are lots of old planes that won't get retrofitted with that unless it becomes an issue of pressing safety concerns.

Hidden text in MacOS 11.3 beta suggests removal of Rosetta 2 compatibility layer in some countries

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question

I disagree again. Two problems. First, it's still translation. I read a set of instructions and translate them into a different set of instructions. That's no different if it's a simplified language that only has a few thousand things it can do.

More importantly though, this distinction doesn't really matter to the question of whether it's reverse-engineering. You say "It is reverse engineering to understand why it is 4 and that 3 is the right value for ARM64". No, it's not doing that. It does not care why it is 4. It is 4 because the code says so and it doesn't care whatsoever other than making the ARM64 processor also use 4 and in an efficient way. Nor is it fair to call it reverse-engineering because "referring back to the x64 architecture". The writers of software don't own that architecture, and therefore they have no right to deny Apple the ability to read it. AMD could theoretically do so, but if they did, they'd have to do the same to all the emulators of X64 and they have not.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question

"It's recompiling AMD64 assembly language to ARM assembly. That's reverse-engineering, compiling is converting human-readable code to assembly."

I disagree. A compiler takes code of some type and converts it into code of a more usable type. That code could be human readable, such as C, or it could be automatically generated and difficult to read. Either way, it's in one language and is being translated. That doesn't require reverse-engineering because nobody is learning how it's doing what it's doing. Nor is it really new. It would count as creating a derivative work if a company is litigious enough, but other than that, I can't see it as really any different.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: As a pure guess

Probably not since the troll concerned would know that Apple could buy them and then wreck their company. If they sue Apple and win, they get cash without any strings attached and can turn their attention to someone else. Apple's lost these patent battles before, often against very small companies, sometimes against companies who don't actually do anything. They have at least never chosen just to buy and destroy, and the operators likely wouldn't accept it either.

doublelayer Silver badge

You'd think so and you'd be correct. If only patent law was about correctness. In practice, if someone wrote up a patent which used enough jargon and filed it, it would get accepted by a lot of countries' patent offices until court proceedings. Some countries, notably the U.S., don't bother checking the validity of patents even once they're in court. Bring a technical looking person to the witness stand and have them jabber on about multilevel caches long enough to confuse the jury and they'll assume Apple is big so they must be stomping on this small startup. Profit.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question

I'm guessing not. If that happened, all Apple has to do is agree not to translate it and put in a precheck which rejects the binary, either running the JIT in volatile memory or refusing to run altogether. They don't need to turn it off for everybody if some companies want to be excluded. That's why I assume it's patent-related on something in the emulation process, and likely a laughably bad patent.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: As a pure guess

"I don't know enough about Macs to know if 32-bit X86 is relevant. That one is Intel's ISA."

It's not really for two reasons. First, Apple made all apps 64-bit, refusing to run 32-bit ones in the penultimate release of Mac OS. Second, most of the X86 ISA has existed long enough that patents on it have expired. AMD64 is newer and may still have patents that can be infringed.

"Then there's SSE / AVX, which are Intel's too. Again, AMD can freely snaffle these under the IPR sharing settlement."

These are more likely targets if Intel were doing it, but I'm guessing that they already reviewed this stuff when Apple announced the ARM compatibility back in June if not months previously.

My guess is that it's not Intel angry about a loss of a large customer but instead some random company which has patented something related to emulation, which the U.S.'s broken patent system accepted. Now Apple's a juicy target and they can sue them. I would have guessed that Apple would defend that instead of destroying their emulation layer since they really need that to encourage their customers not to hold off adoption of the ARM kit, but Apple's lost patent fights before, sometimes with and sometimes without a good reason, so maybe not. Either that or they're going to pull it from somewhere to see how broken things get.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Seems Odd, and Big Question

Windows on ARM already has that. It was 32-bit only but has recently gained X64 compatibility. If that emulation is protected by patents, either Microsoft paid for them or they may face whatever Apple is theorized to be facing.

It only took four years and thousands of complaints but ICANN finally kills off rogue Indian domain registrar

doublelayer Silver badge

Which was fine in 1994 since there wasn't a massive automatic spam operation gathering up those, and when there was probably a single person in charge of that stuff because they had few admins. In order to get those benefits, I suggest that registrars have an email forwarder which can contact the relevant contact but keep all other details hidden unless the customer opts into sharing those details. There is no reason they need physical address or phone numbers and not really a reason they need an email either.

9 years after SpaceX strode into Texas village, Elon Musk floats name change for Boca Chica: 'Starbase'

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Boomtown sounds fine to me

Well, among other things, it's a village with people living in it. Maybe, since he doesn't live there and they do, they should be the ones choosing the name. The relevant laws seem to have various requirements that make this harder. Described here, they have restrictions on how many people must be present to incorporate (looks like you need at least 600). If it needs to be big enough to hold the launch facility, they will need more as the population limit goes up depending how much space you're going to include. Then, you need those people to vote in favor of the incorporation including the name and governance structure.

I'm sure Musk and Spacex would really love to own their own city where they can set any local laws they want, but it's not as simple as that since they have to deal with all the people living there and they actually have to have people living there to do it. If they think they can get all their employees to move somewhere and vote in favor, that could work, but otherwise they're going to have to actually convince people to go along with it. I'm seeing little in it for anyone who doesn't run Spacex.

Brave buys a search engine, promises no tracking, no profiling – and may even offer a paid-for, no-ad version

doublelayer Silver badge

Clear, conscious biases, definitely

"There will be Goggles created by creationists, anti-vaccination supporters or flat-earthers," the paper says. "However, the biases will be explicit, and therefore, the choice is a conscious one."

Right. Hands up who believes that?

If anyone ever goes into this system and deliberately turns on these things, which I doubt, then there will indeed be groups setting them up to include information they believe in. They will be dishonest about it. The antivaccination goggle won't be called "Antivaccination information". It will be called something like "Reliable research" with a description stating that it removes articles published in pseudoscientific journals which produce papers upon the request of big companies and instead only includes scientific information which has been reviewed by independent researchers or press coverage thereof. Simple research about what this actually does would show people what is really happening, just as brief research kills any number of crap theories that tons of people believe. The good news is that I don't think many people will ever turn these on.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Free-paid schizophrenia

That's their problem. They have the information and can decide how much they should charge to get the business of people willing to pay to avoid the ads. If they make the paid service cheap such that they would have made more with the ads, that's their choice and they could always have increased the price. Given they already have this strange system of paying people to view ads with a mostly worthless cryptocurrency without typical cryptocurrency controls, they probably know quite a bit about how much money ads bring in and how much they can expect individual users to interact with them.

It’s back: America's net neutrality advocates begin push to return to pre-Trump internet protections

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Not that long ago...

I would also like to see that, but it's not really correct that content providers have extra power. They in fact have less power. If the infrastructure doesn't get improved, then the bandwidth going to you can be bad but will be equally bad on streamer A as it is on streamer B. If there was no neutrality, then the streamers have more power since they can, at the cost of paying the ISP, kill their competition by making streamer B not work at all because everyone on streamer A is monopolizing the bandwidth.

That also lessens the desire of the ISP to improve infrastructure. If both streamers' customers receive equally bad service, they will complain and that might convince the ISP to change something. If streamer A's customers are happy, they've cut their complaints in half. Also, if they improve infrastructure such that there's enough for streamer B again, streamer A doesn't get any advantage by paying them and would stop paying on the deal. Thus, the lack of net neutrality would encourage stagnation on infrastructure and empower both the ISPs and content providers.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Is Netflix really a monopoly ...?

That's not how monopolies work. If I want the kind of product and there's one supplier, that's a monopoly. If I want the very specific product and there's one supplier but several more supplying similar products, that's not a monopoly. ISPs can be monopolies when there is little or no competition at usable speeds. A streaming provider could be a monopoly if they had everything and you couldn't watch video without them or you could only watch really bad video. But they're not a monopoly if they have the exclusive right to a particular show. That's just them having a good product.

That's a bit harsh: Lenovo adds 2 new toughened boxen to ThinkEdge edge computing line

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Global climate change, not.

Lots of industrial places need extreme cold temperatures. Pharmaceutical and frozen food warehouses need to be very cold. So do some factories. Also, there are large chunks of the world where it's frequently very cold, warming notwithstanding. A warehouse in most of Canada or Scandinavia is going to be cold in winter even as the planet warms; a few degrees of heating can cause major damage to the biosphere but it's not going to make winter into summer.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Confused

IoT has never meant anything. It can mean things that aren't actually connected to the internet, even through a gateway, and it can mean completely normal computers connected to the internet. It's a term which means almost anything the speaker wants it to mean. So long as there's a processor somewhere that is involved, it counts. Therefore, it's been used to envelop lots of other categories that are clearer. Home automation is what consumer-style IoT normally means. Industrial automation is IoT when applied to a factory or agricultural user, at least most of the time. Sometimes it just means mechanical surveying or monitoring. Just like "edge computing" means "the computer is near where it's used", "IoT" means "there's something technical that probably doesn't need a person there all the time".

doublelayer Silver badge

It's between those views. It's not the way we've been doing things for the past 50 years because 50 years ago was 1971 where everything happened in the data center. But it is what we've done for a lot of the past two decades and a lot of the article's text is weird.

"Edge computing is a paradigm that sees complex computational tasks [...] performed as close to the “user” as possible."

Nothing wrong there. The most complex tasks have long been done at the data center. Searching a big database or things like that usually happened there. What are the things they're discussing?

"like data analysis or cloud gaming"

This though is a little funny. Data analysis can be done in a DC if it's intense enough, but it's not unusual to perform the analysis on a typical computer. Cloud gaming, while done on cloud machines now, is what happened after gaming on user's computers because the cloud couldn't handle things fast enough to return the frames to the user before they became obsolete. That is nothing new.

If we want something even funnier, check this:

"The 5G network spec has been touted as a major driver behind this, particularly in the spaces of industrial and agricultural IoT, thanks to its lower latencies when compared to previous generation mobile standards."

This is so far off the mark. 5G is faster, meaning there is less time (assuming you have 5G and it's working) to get your data from the collection point to the server. That means the latency problem of waiting for the cloud is lowered. 5G is actually reducing the likelihood of edge computing since it doesn't take as long to wait. Edge computing is useful when you don't want to wait, so you collect the data here and process it here too.

Since the 90s, we've had the ability to take a computer out to places where data was collected. Not only that, but through much of that time, the ability to send that data from the point of collection to a larger computer was a weak point. Mobile connections were not as widespread and much slower. So a lot of the use cases for that collection either waited a long time for slow uploads to a data center or processed the data locally. Only as networks improved did we start doing more of that on remote servers. Edge is not a new concept. It's a new name for "the computer is in the collector box".

Flagship Chinese chipmaker collapses before it makes a single chip or opens a factory

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: More to this than meets the eye

Biological chemicals and chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing are very different. I'll admit now that I know little about either, but it's not surprising that China, which has a large pharmaceutical industry, has a better supply chain for biological chemicals than they do for those needed for semiconductors, since they don't have such a thriving industry in that. Japan and the U.S. both do have a long history of making semiconductors, and the other countries that make a lot of them are Taiwan and South Korea who both have pretty good relations with those countries.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: @Ken Hagan - More to this than meets the eye

The problem remains. What, exactly, was or is the terrible thing the west has to deal with because Russian programmers are good? The hacking? No, that can't be it. Any country that puts a lot of effort into getting hacking capabilities can get there. North Korea has had almost no history of computer education and used to have really bad malware, but they're now quite good at it because they invested. Maybe Russia is so good at coding that they'll dominate us economically. They don't. What's the terrible consequence hanging over us?

The only result of this vaunted Russian efficiency that I can see is that there are Russian programmers who are good at their jobs, whether in Russia or out of it. I know several Russian programmers who are usually pretty good, but I also know programmers who are pretty good and came from countries on all inhabited continents. Also, there are some programs written by Russians which are nice. Nginx and 7zip come immediately to mind, and there are certainly more. That's if anything a benefit to us given how probably a bunch of us use those. As an argument, it doesn't make much of a point in support of anything else.

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Are you shilling for the Communist Party of China?

This is mostly incorrect.

"China does not "hold US Debt". Rather it has a lot of US Dollars in interest-bearing accounts in the United States, called "Treasuries"."

Treasuries are bonds issued by the U.S. government, specifically the federal reserve, in order to borrow money to pay for government spending. That is otherwise known as debt. Also, it's not U.S. accounts, it's accounts anywhere, mostly China, holding U.S.-issued bonds.

"The only thing it can do with that money is spend it in the United States."

That's wrong on a few levels. First, it's not money in there, it's bonds. Eventually, the bonds mature and they have money they need to reinvest, but the accounts concerned contain bonds that haven't matured. So they can't spend it because it's not money. What they can do is sell them.

"If it decides to withdraw that money from those accounts, then it would have a lot of USD sitting in NON-interest bearing accounts, and why would it do that?"

As stated, it would "withdraw money" by selling the bonds it currently has and also stop buying new ones. It doesn't do that now because U.S. bonds are generally seen as safe and it wants money more than it wants to annoy the U.S. If it did, the bonds would sell at their face value at least, meaning that China would get the interest they already earned and also push up the supply of U.S. debt on the market. Supply goes up, the price goes down, so now the U.S. has to pay a higher interest rate on new debt they issue. That might not be a problem if other countries and investors see U.S. debt as still safe, but if they don't, then it could be a bigger problem. Investors do that all the time. They decide they want to invest in something that will pay better than their bonds, so they sell their bonds. China might even do that without wanting to hurt the U.S. if they decide there's a better place to invest the money.

"As economist Warren Mosler put it, 'All we owe China is a bank statement.'"

And he's correct, but it's not the kind of bank statement which can be erased quickly if the U.S. decides to delete China's money. It's not a killswitch on the American economy, but it is something they can manipulate for leverage if they want to.

"The US Federal Government never borrows money. It doesn't need to."

They don't need to, but they do borrow. They have the systems to make as much money out of thin air as they want, but they don't use them to simply increase their account balance when they want to spend more money than they have. They issue bonds, paying interest to people who lend them money now, in order not to print as much new money. I don't understand how you're missing the point that, when they accept money now and promise to return it with interest later, they're borrowing money.

President Biden weighs in on Amazon unionization efforts, warns giant to steer clear of threats, coercion

doublelayer Silver badge

Re: Ah, Amazon

And I don't really have a problem with using machines to improve the efficiency of something, even if it means there aren't people working there anymore. If that's all they wanted to do, I could be right behind them. It's when they treat people like they would machines, without regard to their humanity, that I have a problem.