Posts by doublelayer

SD cards add PCIe and NVMe, hit 985 MB/sec and 128TB

Super fast...right

I wonder why I'm not buying the extreme speeds they claim. I'm not sure. Maybe it's something to do with:

USB 1:

Speed rating: 12 megabits per second

Speed in real numbers: 1.5 mb/s

Real speed (relatively good): ~350 kb/s

USB 2:

Speed rating: 480 megabits per second

Speed in real numbers: 60 mb/s

Real speed (relatively good): ~4.5 mb/s

USB 3:

Speed rating: 5 gigabits per second

Speed in real numbers: 625 mb/s

Real speed (relatively good): 25 mb/s

You can get faster speeds from these ports--if your device can send at their high rates, you will get data that fast. Still, the type of storage devices that are most frequently used on these (not talking about backup hard drives that cost more) are not capable. Flash drives don't go anywhere near the speeds the ports should let them, and neither do SD cards. Just because the standard can support it won't make SD cards SSD speed. Even if it has been proven to work via someone actually building a prototype, no cards actually providing that functionality will become available.

Also, I'm guessing these "extremely fast" cards will have the same problem that affects current cards that are high speed and high capacity: they're great for storing lots of large files, but if you need to store a great many small ones, they become slow. No problem for a camera, especially those ones that take massive raw image files. No problem for my main use case, audio recorders that are frequently called upon to record for hours. But it is a problem for anything trying to run an operating system off one. Not many operating systems have files that are individually larger than about 128mb, but most do include lots of files hovering between 10 and 100 kb. For the SD card to run the OS, it will need to handle that well. Oh, by the way, do you think all those devices using SD cards will get off their addiction to FAT32, because we're already at the point where that file system isn't useful.

BlackBerry KEY2: Remember buttons? Boy, does this phone sure have them

Re: Here he goes again ...

I can see a small reason for a flip style, but not for a clamshell one. Things like the gemini that offer a tiny laptop, sure, but not a phone doing phone-style things. The benefits I see with the flip style is that you can have some protection of anything delicate, you have more distance between the microphone and speaker so it actually fits your head, and flipping open to answer and closed to hang up is rather nice. However, the phone would have to be relatively large to accommodate that structure with the kind of screen sizes people want nowadays. I'd be fine with a 4-inch screen, but the buying habits of most others, as reflected in the phones being produced at flagship level, clearly disagree. As little as I want a 5.5-inch phone, I want it even less if it is much thicker, which it would have to be. This leads me to the other problem I have with the flip style for a smartphone--there is a lot of surface area for rather little volume, meaning that things like batteries would likely remain in one piece, powering the other. This makes the modular idea rather limited and means the extra thickness won't host extra battery, which is the reason I'm willing to accept that. In addition, current flip designs wouldn't make it easy to have a single flat surface when flipping open, which makes it difficult to orient the screen at a comfortable angle without having to deal with the other half. That other half would be difficult to orient for typing such that the screen is also conveniently positioned. I'm all for flip phones, but I'd like them to remain the small non-smart variety. The flat screen type, in my mind, best fits the way people use smartphones.

Re: Buttons

That may be down to bad design. You either need enough buttons to do the job or a configurable interface (touchscreen usually) with optional buttons with straightforward functionality (I do not want a touchscreen volume control, thanks). Those devices trying to go the middle route and have two buttons for something where ten would be more useful, with patterns of press first button, then immediately press and hold second one, then tap first three times, are giving buttons a bad name that is not deserved.

'No questions asked' Windows code cert slingers 'fuel trade' in digitally signed malware

Re: PKI done properly costs money

I don't think so. You seem to be saying that, if we just got over it and cheerfully spent the money, things would be better. These certs aren't free, and the problem's still there. Perhaps one reason we'd prefer the certification process to be free is that all the power for whether the code we wrote is trusted goes to someone else.

The same is true of https. Sure, you can see having a certificate that isn't self-signed as an indication that the server is likely to be who it says it is, but if you're really in a situation where you can't be sure of that, you have bigger problems. If you're getting DNS poisoned to bounce you or someone's taken over a domain name, the problem is big and needs to be dealt with more strongly. Meanwhile, an HTTPS cert of any type provides the user an encrypted connection to the site and protects them. You have to choose where you go, but https://www.iamevil.scammerparadise.net is still going to be risky no matter whether they paid someone to verify that they owned it.

Dot-Africa saga going to jury trial... thousands of miles away in America

How about no .africa

Regardless of exactly how corrupt ICANN was in this case, it is my opinion that the application for .africa should never have been approved. There are only two groups that should have the rights to .africa:

1. A body selected by a vote of all African countries (that's going to happen).

2. AFRINIC.

What logic did ICANN use to say that some company or even country should have the rights to a TLD oriented at a continent? That should belong to the continent involved.

Chrome sends old Macs on permanent Safari: Browser bricks itself

Re: One in twenty users?

Sort of but not exactly. Since 10.9, new versions of the OS are free and can be installed relatively easily. It's not like windows 10; it will actually run pretty much the same. Since they didn't leave any models on 10.9 (everything on 10.9 supports up to 10.11), they supported it for less. I believe they still release security patches for 10.11 because older machines have reached the last supported OS. Incidentally, I'd recommend everyone running less than 10.11 upgrade to it, because it is significantly more stable, and that nobody upgrade from 10.11, especially to 10.13.

So you're doing an IoT project. Cute. Let's start with the basics: Security

Re: If you don't connect it to the network, ...

But they make it look like connecting it to the network will be helpful. That means that nuts like my parents, who had decided to test out some streaming services, tried to get the TV to stream them for them by having it connect to the network. Of course it didn't work, but now I have to find out how to get this thing back off the network. Somehow, my suggestion of giving them a raspberry pi that they could just connect an HDMI cable to was not seen as helpful.

Ubuntu reports 67% of users opt in to on-by-default PC specs slurp

Well, that was useful

And here we have...what we already knew we would have. People are using computers that look like computers we deal with on a daily basis. Even discounting the fact that most of these are probably VMs, the specs they gave us are the specs of any number of standard machines. You have the laptops (most standard-price ones are 1366x768) and desktops (connected to monitors at 1080p). And you really expect that everyone's using just one monitor. I have a friend who uses her ubuntu setup with three monitors. She's not going to power up all three just to install ubuntu; she'll turn on one, install it, then use all three when she has a real reason to do so. Meanwhile, they did get a report from me; a VM, running at 4gb ram, connected to a monitor at 1080P. What a surprise. I can really see the point of collecting this.

Trainee techie ran away and hid after screwing up a job, literally

Re: Key word is "Trainee"

"but giving them a crappy task that needs little or no training, (except, making the tea for the workers on a site can be a very skilled job to get right, getting everyone's tea made to exactly how they like it, i.e. more or less milk, 3 or 5 sugars)** is part of the training...."

It seems really pointless. Primarily, I'd assume that people should just make their own tea. If there is something that needs to be done by one person so that everyone can do that, fine make the trainee do it, but if that's the main thing they do, it feels like you can't be bothered to respect the skills they are supposed to be enhancing. Theoretically they were hired to learn things because they showed promise. If you're going to use them as a person to do odd jobs for which their experience is by and large pointless, then you might as well have hired someone who didn't have the skills. They'd probably have been somewhat cheaper, there are many people needing the job, and they would have knowledge of what you were going to ask them to do.

"back in the day of apprenticeships, all they did in a machine shop was brush up and clean the machinery until they knew all the names of the parts. it would take time to learn the skills to work on actual client works..."

Exactly! That's what I'm talking about. Sure, they're doing something that is relatively easy, but they are learning something relevant. This part is called X. It is part of that thing over there, and it performs task Y. This is how to clean it properly. Once you've cleaned it, so that we can use it again, you'll learn what part Z does and how you can use parts X and Z together. They may have learned faster if their supervisor just taught them, but that wouldn't be efficient.

In the end, they got the benefit of knowing what was going on, their employer got the benefit of their work, and either they continued to work together, in which case both were successful, or the employee was able to use extra experience to get or set up a career for themselves. Meanwhile, someone who is used as cheap labor for making tea or similar completely unrelated tasks gets next to no benefit. They have learned nothing, so all they get is something to put on their resume that shows that they worked on something. It's single sided toward the company, but there are very many options for it not to be. That's why I have a problem with it.

Canadian utility makes blockchain upstarts bid for their ravenous rigs' electricity supply

Re: Server Farms and Mining Rigs should be...

But what if it's summer but it's been chilly for a bit. Might I fold some proteins then?

How does this work?

If they intend to charge me extra, what stops me from lying about what I'm doing? No, these servers aren't mining, they're running machine learning workloads. Or collecting data for a massive search engine over a database. Or anything that requires a lot of processing. In fact, the electricity company might have trouble figuring out whether that's processing power or power from something else. True, there aren't many things that run 24/7, but how could they tell that a given kilowatt for one of those things was for mining versus anything else I could use it for.

Amazon tweaks its word processor for easier online Office edits

Re: Past its sell by date?

Please don't. I use libreoffice too, but return it in a format that isn't bloated and slow. PDFs break a lot, are ridiculously large for the data stored in them, and usually require far too much software to read.

Schneier warns of 'perfect storm': Tech is becoming autonomous, and security is garbage

Re: One day, ...

Ok. Now I'm curious. Since I can't think of anything that would get rid of all computers while leaving humans, what type of situation can you think of where computers would be banned? And does your theory also account for the populace to comply with said ban? I'd really like to hear your theories, because I'm not thinking that way at all.

In huge privacy win, US Supreme Court rules warrant needed to slurp folks' location data

Victory! for now

I'm very glad to hear this. I hope this is the first step in the advancement of most privacy-respecting regulations, as more and more data is deemed to be personal enough. Here's to the spirit of this decision living on for as long as possible.

How a tax form kludge gifted the world 25 joyous years of PDF

Re: PDF is clunky.

Whatever reason they may have had for losing the document, their mistakes were not the point. The point is that PDF files, although they are lauded as being useful on any platform, frequently lack the feature of making their content available if you don't want to just look at them. Some PDFs have text that can be extracted, but the number that don't is higher than the number that do. If I want to use the contents for some reason, be that copying and pasting code, quoting accurately, or sending data over something where text is more convenient*, PDFs frequently won't work. Sometimes, this is done for security, because I suppose it would be harder to violate copyright with something where copy and paste are made impossible, but usually it's down to someone messing something up or being a control freak because I should view this document in the font they like. With any text-based format, you have the freedom to make it useful by converting it to any format that would work well. The greatest risk is that it won't look as nice on the other end. With a PDF, the message seems to be that you are not allowed to do anything that the original document-writer didn't think of allowing you to do.

*Recently, I wanted to give someone some of the documentation for a system they were using. The only problem was that they were on the other side of an e-mail exchange. I can't send the PDF file because it's 48 mb and there's a limit on attachment size. This file was sent to me, so I don't have a link to it online. I could post it somewhere and let them download it, sure, but copying and pasting the ten-item instruction list would really have been more convenient.

Hot new application for blockchain: How does botnet control sound?

Re: No worse than something on a web page

Good point on the light node way, I was not aware that was a thing. I suppose that eliminates my objection.

On the subject of reddit, I was using that as an example, but the point was that you couldn't kill the mechanism. You post a message in a monitored thread (give the system a list of two hundred or so to check, from any account. Every message gets read and decoded. Therefore, all you need to control the system is a key that can sign/encrypt a command and knowledge of the threads used. Reddit/whatever platform it is using can find your message and delete it, and also block the account, but you don't need either of those. The message was already read and acted upon, and you can send another message just by opening another account and posting with it. Perhaps reddit will take things down too quickly, but all you need is some online forum thing that allows new accounts rather easily and doesn't pre-check posts. Posting here, for example, wouldn't work because the first three posts are moderated manually. That doesn't hold for many other methods. One other benefit of the online posting way is that the periodic killing of posts helps the commander. There is little chance of the program getting an old instruction and acting on it when it shouldn't.

Re: No worse than something on a web page

But the only way that will work is for the malware writers to use an existing blockchain, which will be massive. If a bot has to download the entire thing so they can find the messages I'm sending, things will be rather slow. I don't think there's a convenient find-transaction feature of the blockchain, because that would require someone else's processing to allow the search. You'd need either a blockchain that is unused enough for processing of it to be fast, or one that is very concise, which makes it hard to encode messages. Instead, you could have a few channels (I'm thinking threads on posts or maybe reddit discussions) where the bot reads them and attempts to decrypt any post with a key. You just need to create an account, encrypt your message, and drop it in. It will be removed by moderators in an hour, but your swarm will have picked it up by then.

WannaCry is back! (Psych. It's just phisher folk doing what they do)

Re: Super virus able to run on any platform

I'm not sure if your being serious or not... but there is no software. They're lying. They just dropped the operating systems they could think of into their message (see first comment for full text) under the theory that that would be helpful.

(Cryptographically) sign me up! Android to take bad app checks offline

Re: Has a disadvantage too

Even if it encourages more people to share binaries, it should prevent as many malware-infected ones from being there. For me, that will be a benefit. I tend to prefer having no google account set up with an android device and avoiding the play systems entirely, but there are things I can't get in fdroid. For example, some google packages are useful to me but don't come installed. I just have to hope that whatever site I get the APKs from haven't infected them (by the way, anyone know whether there are some trustworthy apk collections out there?). For me, this will be somewhat helpful.

Re: Cole's Law

But most of them do have app stores. It's just that all apps are free and you can go elsewhere. Really, for those installing apache on a linux box, how many do you think went and downloaded a source or binary from apache's site, and how many did apt/yum/pacman install apache2? That's usually more convenient, so that's almost always what I do if I want something straightforward (just the default version) or running as a service, rather than just something to run myself.

Script kiddie goes from 'Bitcoin Baron' to 'Lockup Lodger' after DDoSing 911 systems

Not quite a master hacker, but still needs a harsh-ish term

This guy may not be particularly dangerous, but anyone who deliberately attacks something in a way that harms emergency management needs to have that enforced. If the people running the system are right that operations were impacted, his little stunt could have caused real damage to many people's lives.

Also, how painful would 36 months without a network connection be? On the bright side, I'd get to avoid those boring e-mails.

Apple takes $9m kick down under after bricking iPhones

Re: weird decision by Aussies

Regarding the argument that the fingerprint sensor might be insecure, that's a risk that is taken when parts are switched. You have to understand that the cheaper part might be problematic, or in fact that something might be dodgy with it. However, the risk doesn't mean I can do whatever I'd like. For example, I can build you a hard drive that contains sneaky ransomware on board. Use it for six months and the ransomware activates, encrypting the disk and booting your machine to ask for money. The fact that I could do this doesn't mean you are justified in never buying a disk again, nor does it make it logical for you to say "Any disks I approve are fine, all others aren't". If I buy a disk, I assume the risk for it. If it turns out someone's sneaking ransomware into them, find them and report them.

Re: Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch,

I don't think so. If I "repaired" something with a part that doesn't work, then I'm the one at fault. However, what was installed was a touch sensor that, while not the one made by apple, did the job it was meant to do. All apple did was to go in and break it. They probably could have gotten away with allowing the driver for the screen to become deprecated and fail, as they aren't obligated to support it, but writing code that essentially does

if (screen.manufacturer != "apple") {

brick_phone();

}

isn't OK. A better analogy would be if your computer broke, a friend replaced the processor with another one that did processing just fine and with the same instruction set, and I, as the software writer, chose to decide that I didn't like that and I'd just make it fail for you. You can't do something the sole purpose of which is to break someone else's thing.

Now Microsoft ports Windows 10, Linux to homegrown CPU design

There's a chance, but not a big one

The way I see it, microsoft have chosen a good time to think about switching over, as they are at a relatively pivotal point. This is similar to the many stories about their thoughts of running windows 10 on arm. I don't see a reason this has to fail, but I can see lots of ways it could. The last time microsoft tried it, for example, they got windows RT and it didn't succeed. They will need to realize that very little is going through the windows store and that the rest needs to be available. That means either getting devs to recompile a lot of things or making a compatibility layer. However, if they manage that, I see no reason this couldn't be a new architecture.

However, given microsoft's track record with this and their current software base, I doubt it will happen. Apple could switch to arm because their low-end users get their software from the appstore, and their high-end users use software made by companies that have enough money to recompile and test the new code to death. Linux can switch to most things because the software can be recompiled by anyone and patches provided by anyone with the knowledge and inclination. If microsoft makes this available, and things start to break, it may fail at that point. They aren't really providing something that we couldn't get before, so it will need to be very good for it to get the chance to become better.

Google-free Android kit tipped to sell buckets

Re: someone can tell me

That doesn't really get very much of it. Here comes a big data blob out, and another one in. What was that? Was it spyware sending your data to a C&C, with the next set of data coming back? Or was that your music player syncing your playlists, or even just checking for updates? There are many devices that would be caught by something like that, but the more you attempt to have the thing online, the more data it will send that you can't make any sense of. If you can't be certain that the connection to the cloud for the GPS data to be interpreted (that's something that won't run on a watch for a while) doesn't also contain anything sneaky, worry is justified.

Meet the Frenchman masterminding a Google-free Android

Re: And about time too...

While I'd really like an open source, everything free, no slurpage system that takes the world by storm, I know that won't be happening. I'd be very satisfied if we could have such a system that is at the level of linux on the desktop. Sure, people in general aren't using it, and remain open to the many problems with the current players, but it is a thing that can do most of the things people want to do, can be installed on most relevant hardware, etc. If we had something that could live comfortably on phones, could be installed on them without fighting them, and had access to the services we need, I would be thrilled. Most things would not need their own applications, because their websites will do most of that. However, we will need apps for the standard videochat and cloud storage software to complement the apps that do more standard on-device things (without a good mail client, contacts manager, calendar, and phone/SMS client, there is no chance).

I have gotten as close as I will probably get to this with a blank android system (no google play apps if I can manage it, firefox as browser, all apps installed from fdroid). I'm sure there's a lot I probably don't want to know about in there, but I don't have a way to get any closer.

There isn't a problem with your setup. The problem is that I can't get it. I have had a few android devices, and I'd have loved for all of them to be google free. That didn't happen.

First, many devices never get support from a third-party ROM. Unless you buy the flagships, you probably only have a fifty-fifty chance of getting something. I don't want to buy the flagships because they cost a ridiculous amount for features I don't need (if my camera has five megapixels, that's enough for the one photo I take in a year) and lack others I'd like (I have a few applications I've written that like the extra storage of an SD card). I can get what I want in a much cheaper android device, but that device probably won't get a non-google ROM customized for it. It definitely wouldn't have been running ubuntu touch or firefox OS when those were still things, explaining why, as much as I wanted to try them, I never got the chance. Some of them can't even be rooted by things available online, or can be rooted by something that only looks extremely dodgy and I'm not sure whether to trust it or not.

Then, even if there is such a ROM, the process for installing it always looks like 1. Root device (no instructions, try to find the least dodgy thing) 2. Log into a shell with ADB 3. Push all of these files to some system directory 4. Run this installation script with these fifteen parameters and wait. And yet, those scripts don't seem to be very reliable. When a shell error happens in the middle of a script, but not one that got handled with an error message, I have to wonder whether I should bother to try to fix the script and/or whatever it has been calling, or give it a miss altogether. Oh, and by the way, I am also wondering whether the half-completed script may have bricked my phone or not.

I'm all for more non-google experiments, but I don't get the idea that these people have considered these problems. They just seem to say that they'd like something, so they're going to go code for a bit. I've said that before, but without actually thinking it through, the results were never good. You have to plan, design, and poke holes in things before you can write a good system. I'm hoping that this group has done that. I doubt they have.

Re: Pipe dream

Maybe I can help with your questions, as I already avoid most google services.

Google docs: Use another program. Microsoft has this one they've made in a bunch of different ways. They don't have to track you, because you pay for it. It's called office. Apple has one too. There are also open source ones, which you can have for free. That's my choice, personally.

Google search: Use another engine. Duckduckgo works OK. So do various others. Google is rather well-liked, and for good reason, but making it out as if google is the only one that works at all is at best misleading.

Google drive: Use another storage system. There are so many cloud services that can be used that I can't even list a representative sample. I quite like dropbox, if you want true cloud, but there are a lot of options. Also, you could use your own systems using a variety of protocols.

Google maps: Use another GPS. Google maps is nice, but you don't have to use this. Evidence? I don't. I've used various GPS applications, usually with maps that were made by companies that make the GPS writers pay for them, which means I pay for them. I paid for the set of maps I have, and it really wasn't that much. The applications work rather well. However, there are free GPS apps that don't rely on google to do everything for them. Also, apple and microsoft both have maps applications of their own. Whether they work for you is a different story, but they exist.

There is nothing that google has that I can't replace with something else. If I don't like google, I can replace their services. So please don't act as if I need to thank google for their selfless creation of this wonderful code. They are asking a price for it, just a price paid using different units, and some of us don't want to pay that price. We pay different prices for some things, go open source for some things, and make our own replacements for other things.

Re: Get a grip

Yes, we do think we can keep these sensitive details away from people. Amazon knows my address, because they need it to deliver. So does the local takeaway, which means that I can just click it and not have to enter it again. That's fine. However, if I'm running a calculator app, it doesn't need to know where I live, and I have no reason to give it that. If it goes about getting it anyway, there is reason for me to dislike that and take action to deal with that, either by dumping the app, feeding it incorrect information (if I can find out how), or complaining to them.

I speak Spanish. If I don't want to tell people that, not because it's a problem but because I feel like it, I have the right and ability to do so. You don't get to tell me that I have no right to hide that, because I can if I'd like. Maybe I'm tired of people asking me to translate things for them, or maybe I'm out of practice and have forgotten things, which embarrasses me. Maybe I just think it's none of your business. If you go about finding this out by tracking things I do, I have every right to become annoyed and take action against your tracking. The same applies to google.

Unbreakable smart lock devastated to discover screwdrivers exist

Re: As I was reading...

Maybe, but there are plenty of things that would be useful. In the case of a thing I considered backing, a phone case that records phone calls and can also act as a convenient audio recorder. That's something I could use, as I find it handy to start a recording with a press of a button, which my phone can't do (unlocking, opening app, and pressing a button is fine but can take a few seconds which annoys the person you want to record, and won't work if you're on the phone. It is a product I want, the price seems fine, and the people are near their estimate of how much money they need to make it, so they should have enough. I don't know what happened in that case, because I didn't end up supporting, but all I know is that they haven't made any of these, the page is dead, and I'm disappointed because I can't buy it.

Re: As I was reading...

That's all true, but I would say that all the stories about things being made with croudfunding that are delivered late if ever and don't work have made me less likely to try it myself. Also, to what extent do other sites have the same level of nonexistent products? I don't hear these stories so much about kickstarter, for instance. There have been a few things I thought about buying from croudfunding projects. I've just checked one of them, which appears to be fully vaporware. It was supposed to ship two years ago and the page hasn't been updated since then. Maybe I'm right to continue to start with distrust and allow them to try to build up from there.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to mark the life of Slack for Windows Phone

Re: Windows Phone ... 7 ?

It was the application in the microsoft store--I.E. it was running on windows 10 mobile (maybe windows phone 8.1 too, but I haven't checked). Frequently, windows 10 mobile is still called windows phone, both because microsoft has been known to do it and the fact that windows 10 mobile sounds weird. Windows mobile was a thing, but it is nothing like windows 10 mobile. Meanwhile, windows 10 mobile and windows 10 are alike only in that they require too much background junk and have cortana on them. Windows 10 mobile and windows phone run on similar devices, in some case the same devices, made by Nokia two to four years ago (they are still making them, right? I haven't really heard anything about it). Hence, windows phone can refer quite clearly to the latest windows thing that runs on phones.

Apple hauled into US Supreme Court over, no, not ebooks, patents, staff wages, keyboards... but its App Store

On balance, I have to support apple

In general, I would like apple to allow a lot of things that they don't. The fact that they have monopoly rights over what can run on their hardware does limit what can be done with them. However, there are two major points that, although I dislike them, I think tilt the balance toward apple.

First is the point that this applies to pretty much any device. Computers generally allow any software to run on them, but that is the exception, not the rule. There are a lot of devices that have a monopolistic method of allowing things or not. I can't go outside amazon's system for things to run on their echo speakers. I can't decide to install my own software on nest's thermostat. I can't erase my android phone and put something else on it. Of course, I may be able to do these things under some conditions if I go to a lot of effort to break into the system, but that also applies to apple, as I can jailbreak my phone and use any number of appstores. In general, I think precedent says that you can build your system in a way you like. Your customers can break into it on their devices, but you don't need to provide them the means to do it. Frankly, if this argument is accepted, I'd like to see a similar action filed against every android phone maker with locked bootloaders.

The second reason is a bit less formal, and that is that this is apple's main selling point. They haven't hidden this fact at all. They guarantee that any app in their store passed their vetting process, which could be used against certain apps because apple doesn't like them, sure, but is more likely to be used against apps with real problems. I think there are similar contracts in many places; microsoft's contract of "You must not sell PCs running Linux or we won't sell you windows" comes to mind. For example, if some store came out with a product and sold it there and nowhere else, could it be argued that they have a duty to sell it in other stores?

What can you do when the pup of programming becomes the black dog of burnout? Dude, leave

Re: we're not freaking magical wizards

I agree, but more because the statement is just wrong. The general public don't see dealing with systems as fighting demons. To judge from the general attitude, they consider it as either building something (those being the courteous ones), putting roadblocks in their way (the annoying ones), or doing something that requires no skills at all (those being the stupid ones). Also, I have never considered a system or program I'm writing to be like a puppy or any other animal. With animals, I get a sense of life, of personality, although that's mostly made up by me, and independence. I view programs as something I am building. It may at some point be independent of my actions, and there may at some point be enough code in it for something it does to be sort of lifelike. However, it's not living enough for me to consider it like an animal. If you want a parallel that works for me, although this is probably very subjective, I'd suggest a system as a piece of art. I have an idea of what it will be, I take steps to get there, and the completed work is designed by my imagination and different from my original blueprint.

Creepy software knows what you are about to do... to that poor salad

Did they invent a magical image recognition system, or is something left out?

I'm mostly wondering how this program managed to look at the part of the video it was provided and figure out what a person is doing in it. Sure, it can be easy enough to look at a frame and say "There are carrots in that bowl", but it can be very difficult for a program to look at arbitrary videos and decide whether I'm chopping or dicing those carrots and what I've done with them next. So many details are unimportant, such as what kind of knife I'm using and how fast I'm chopping, yet that will be a lot of the activity. For example, consider a situation where I'm going to make a salad and have started a video stream to this AI. I am currently standing in front of two cutting boards, one containing spinach and the other cucumber. The video is instantly recognizable to a person, and probably to the AI, as well. However, what if I have limited counter space, so the cucumber cutting board is behind me on a different counter. Am I going to use the cucumber? That's a typical salad-making move, but the camera doesn't know. I may just have placed my vegetables on that counter and moved the spinach over because that's what I'm using now.

Therefore, I can think of three possibilities for how this AI does this, which they at least didn't explain in the article and I'm kind of tired so I'm not looking for extra explanations right now:

1. The image recognition system was provided information and has managed a great training set that has actually allowed it to automatically determine, within limits, what culinary task I'm doing. This would be revolutionary news, and would massively overshadow the prediction element, because it would be a success while the prediction is at best borderline noteworthy. So I'm assuming that didn't happen.

2. The training set was made very similar (same kitchen, camera position, etc.) and all the test videos were also shot there, so the algorithm would fail under any standard conditions. In that case, they are overestimating the usefulness of their code.

3. The researchers labeled their videos for the convenience of their algorithm, in which case the prediction algorithm is being based on alternate data. Similar to the time when google tried to predict cancer in patients and forgot to take out the record that identified people as being treated at "[name] cancer center", thus getting a program that looked great while being entirely useless, if this is the case, this experiment is a major failure.

Apple will throw forensics cops off the iPhone Lightning port every hour

Re: Does this mean ...

My solution to this problem, while slightly less secure, is to cut off data transfer an hour after it stopped already. Therefore, anything that you started with proper access goes to completion just fine, and an hour after that, the lock goes into effect. This also means that someone who has a device they want to continue to have access can do that because the connection remains live and has to die for an hour before the lock engages. This does mean that if there was a data transfer less than an hour before the police try to get into the device, then their device can brute force all it likes because the transfer can't be interrupted. However, given the relative rarity of people actually using hardware data transfer with phones, this probably isn't a big deal. Also, under this system, I'd probably reduce the time to about ten minutes.

Re: Oh goodie...

Probably not. The phone will refuse to send any data or accept input from the connection, but it can still read the chip. Even if it does use the same bus, I don't think you can put something on the USB end to get it to trust the cable, because the chip is read directly. So the cables will most likely remain broken.

Re: Easy good passwords, here I go again...

Technically true, but usually it won't work. Most systems will disallow things other than plain ASCII. Unicode and in some cases extended ASCII is out. In fact, there was one system I had to use that blocked a password using the question mark (?) symbol. Actually, it sent the password in but chopped out the question mark first, such that the original password would not work but the one with the mark excised would. Great job there. Rather than allowing a system to get confused, I tend to go for length plus a few punctuation marks; that way, nobody can just brute force the alphabet to get it.

Google plots death of inline installation for Chrome extensions

Re: Big Brother much?

They could already do that. They haven't removed the sideloading thing, but instead they have patched a hole that allowed people to sneak code into users' browsers with a low-profile thing that was easier for users to just click through. I don't use chrome because of the privacy problems it entails, but google has improved it with this change. I see little to complain about in this situation.

Men are officially the worst… top-level domain

Is it too late to get rid of the new TLDs

I don't think we need any of the new TLDs, and I'm not even sure why people are buying them. I can see a few cases for some things, usually geographic ones like .nyc or .london. Otherwise, the lists are full of domains that cost a ridiculous amount, thus virtually guaranteeing that nobody will use them, redundant names (.accountant and .accountants both exist because, you know, why not) and some that are now owned by corporations (.google? Why?). We don't need them. Delete them all.

Microsoft pulls the plug on Windows 7, 8.1 support forums

Re: Surface Pro 2?!?

Not quite. The surface pro 2 was released on 22 October 2013, so it's a little under five years old. I'm not supporting their decision to drop support, because it'll still do computing, but it's a bit old hardware wise.

Re: Not sure how big of a loss this is

I've noticed this as well. I think it has recently taken the top spot for most annoying forum post over the people on stackoverflow who feel the need to put "This question has been asked before. Please look there [no link] and ask again if that doesn't answer your question" on all the posts just so the first three stackexchange links that come up for any search will have them.

Actual control of Windows 10 updates (with a catch)... and more from Microsoft

The screen-mouse will fail

Sorry, microsoft, but your touchscreen trackpad system has no chance. Apple actually had a chance with their touchbar--sure, nobody wanted it, but they could ensure that all the macs available would have it, that all the apple software would make it useful (sort of, but at least it would do something), and that people who were doing development and wanted or needed a new mac would have it available. You can't do that. The little touchscreen is going to cost money to make, so nobody buying their machines on a budget will have one. It has no business case, so people buying laptops for employees won't use one. The pad is now a selling point for the machines it's shoved into, and there really isn't enough use case for people to buy it. If you really want to see it succeed, start forcibly attaching it to all the models you can, especially the surface. Then, you can actually say that [some large number] of these pads have been sold. However, don't assume that their sale means anyone's using them, because they're not.

Have to use SMB 1.0? Windows 10 April 2018 Update says NO

Re: FFS microsoft

I think microsoft has a point here. Never mind that the protocol was made insecurely; that was a problem before but it's just reality now and it has to be dealt with. Microsoft can't seem to get people to change from one protocol to the next version that is more secure just by making it available. SMB2 is twelve years old, after all. In that case, it may be needed to add an incentive for that to happen. Sure, it'd be nice if nothing ever broke and people only had to upgrade when they wanted new features, but that's not how software works.

A month ago, I found this old device with an ancient linux kernel on it (version 2.6, proprietary interface on it) in my closet. I played around with it, trying to see if you could run modern stuff on it. The device had no package manager and no C compiler, but it did have various other packages and python. So I tried to download some code from github, and what happened? It wouldn't download because github had instituted a security policy the browser didn't support. I'm not quite sure what it was. I think this is new enough to support https in general, so I assume it was a new version of SSL. So, technically, SSL changed its security policy in such a way that my device couldn't even browse the internet. Still, we want that kind of thing to happen because if we just left it out, we wouldn't have security. We'd have plain HTTP, and whatever version of SSL we started with. That version has become insecure, so we've canceled it. Security requires protocols to change. Sometimes, that means we can't use our windows 2003 servers anymore because it's now 2018. In my case, it means my powerhouse of a 520mhz ARM processor from I don't know how old with its 64mb of ram can't be expected to go online anymore. Of course, if the hardware on which it was running was that important, we could always reinstall it with something modern. Sometimes, that's just how things should be.

VPNFilter router malware is a lot worse than everyone thought

Re: "no software will be ever fully secure, sorry.."

I support open source. I don't want only one open source thing to exist. For example, I like Linux and support it, but I don't have a problem with BSD, nor would I have a problem with any other open source operating system. I'm fine that non-free OS are there too, but I don't like the theory so much.

However, if the choices are one open source thing or one closed source thing, I'm going to go with the open source thing, so long as they have similar features--I'm not going to throw away a modern and working product for some code written in 2003 and not maintained. The reason is that, when something terrible happens to it, there are many people who will work on making it work again. If, for example, we had a situation in which everything in the world ran under the same version of Linux, thus making it possible for someone to attack it all and take it down, I feel more confident that someone can get it back up than if it was windows running everything. Neither should be allowed to happen, but if something open source fails, you need to fix it yourself or someone who also uses it needs to fix it. If some closed source thing fails, the people who made it have to fix it, which breaks if the people don't want to, are not available, are busy, or have lost data they need for the task. So, no, I don't want open source dictatorship, but yes, I do tend to trust such software a bit more.

Stop us if you've heard this one: Adobe Flash gets emergency patch for zero-day exploit

Adobe, you made a mistake

"The Photoshop giant said today its Flash Player 30.0.0.113 update should be a top installation priority for Mac, Windows, and Linux systems."

Adobe, I'm sorry I couldn't come into work today. Evidently the person you had making press statements hasn't read my playbook. The quote should have resulted in this excerpt from the article:

"The Photoshop giant said today its Flash Player 30.0.0.113 update should be immediately installed over any older version, and then both it and all related versions should be permanently purged from the user's computer. This is a top priority for Mac, Windows, and Linux systems."

I'll be back to work after the weekend. Please put this statement out, however, as it is quite urgent.

Hey, Mac fanbois: Got $600,000 burning a hole in your pocket? Splash out on this rare Apple I

Re: Did the Reg really ...

I think they're just of the opinion that an apple I that won't be useful in any way and may not actually work at this point isn't worth the money. That's not the same as saying there's something wrong with the auction. Frankly, although I'm interested in old computers and wouldn't mind physically owning some of the more famous models to play around with the hardware, I would not pay very much at all for them. Also, I'd probably get bored rather quickly and then seek to get rid of them again because they're useless for real computing and probably a lot heavier than I, who grew up in laptop era, would assume.

You know what your problem is, Apple? Complacency

Re: Just more BS

They did come up with the iPad size first. However, the first touch product they released was the iPhone. The iPod touch was released after the first iPhone, so it was more that they removed the phone part and made the iPod touch.

US govt mulls snatching back full control of the internet's domain name and IP address admin

Yay choices

So, we have option 1. Option 1 is that ICANN remains independent from governmental control. It is free to mess things up as comprehensively as ever. That's not good. Let's look at option 2. Option 2 is to give it to the U.S. government. Those in charge now have less knowledge, and it's being championed by politicians with next to no knowledge about what it even does. Not to mention the fact that having it explicitly under the government will intensify the calls of nutcase nations to go with option 3: put it under the ITU. Can we have option 4, please?

Loose .zips sink chips: How poisoned archives can hack your computer

Re: Another deja vu?

No, this isn't a zip bomb. Those are zip files or other archive files that decompress to a bunch of data. Sometimes they are also recursive so they decompress to multiple copies of themselves. The goal of an archive bomb is making the system run out of resources: memory or disk if the zips expand to a lot of data, processor if they are recursive. Thus, the program running them will crash or run into problems.

This file wouldn't cause a crash. Instead, it would write files to a location that isn't planned. For example, imagine that you unzip a file on windows in c:\Users\me\extract. Normally, all the contents will be under that folder. The zip file, however, can be constructed so that it also decompresses to c:\windows\system32\explorer.exe. This overwrites it with a different file that contains malware, and now running the formerly trusted explorer process will infect the system. The zip is not meant to crash the system, but to infect it.