Posts by Cav 148 posts • joined 19 Jun 2018
Interesting. I do wonder if this site is composed primarily of anti-Western Chinese agents.
We are rightly concerned that Google et al track your every move, if you are daft enough to allow them to, but as soon as someone suggests it's a problem that the Chinese government does the same, it's all mockery and whataboutism.
And for the hard of thinking, the problem isn't the machine used to post the content to Tik Tok but the data collected by the devices reading that content, hence the "we cannot and should not legitimise the use of an app which has been described by tech experts as 'essentially Chinese government spyware". Again, for the hard of thinking, by posting content to Tik Tok, these politicians see it as encouraging the use of an app that almost certainly feeds back to the CCP.
As for the tone of the article, what are you, teens trying to be "edgy" as you put it?
So many commenting and ignoring "It was further alleged that he had stolen credit cards and checks from elderly Spectrum subscribers, and that the corporation turned a blind eye to a pattern of theft by its installers and technicians." and "the court heard how Holden would break down crying at work, at one point was convinced he was a former Dallas Cowboys football player, suffered from insomnia, and was probably sleeping overnight in his Spectrum van."
If they knew that the perp was mentally unstable and aware of thefts then the company IS responsible. As for whether those allegations were true or not, that's what juries decide. In this case they obviously decided that the company was negligent for the given reasons. Being negligent, they are responsible.
Another one ignoring "It was further alleged that he had stolen credit cards and checks from elderly Spectrum subscribers, and that the corporation turned a blind eye to a pattern of theft by its installers and technicians."
Also every employer has a duty of care toward their customers. They apparently knew the guy was mentally unstable and so yes, if they continued to send him into the homes of the vulnerable, they are responsible.
Yeah, just ignore the fact that they have duty of care for both employees and customers, and ignore:
"It was further alleged that he had stolen credit cards and checks from elderly Spectrum subscribers, and that the corporation turned a blind eye to a pattern of theft by its installers and technicians."
The award of billions is excessive but they are certainly culpable if the allegations are true.
"Just keep in mind that no matter the cause they try to peddle, people having to resort to this hackneyed "children" cliche are always disingenuous, and clearly have a agenda they can't admit to."
Meanwhile, in the real world, it is perfectly possible for people of good conscience to have views that differ from your own; views that you disagree with but about which others are entirely genuine. I'm in favour of encryption and privacy. I take great care of my own. However, I can understand the frustration of those whose role it is to fight crime. Encryption does make it harder. It is entirely correct that the discussion continues. The accusations and hyperbole from the extreme opposition is ridiculous.
Cue the down votes from those who can't engage in rational discussion.
"NSA attacks Iran (2010) -- no one gave a s**t!"
Because Iran is developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Any country that has stated their intent to destroy another country that is no direct threat to themselves, deserves attack.
It does actually - because, as in that case, people make reactors and people are too often stupid, greedy and lazy.
The Chernobyl exclusion area is only not presently dangerous because it is undisturbed. It will have to remain this way for some 20,000 years. 20,000 years is a long time in which other accidents can occur, each with the potential to have harmful impacts for millennia. It only takes one accident, or act of stupidity, to happen every couple of centuries, to turn vast areas of land into nature reserves, that are ticking time-bombs - fire has the potnetial to spread radioactivity from such areas.
Now, I'd be happy to have large areas of the world returned to nature, but I'm sure many would object, since Nuclear power stations tend to be where the people are, and not in remote, wild areas.
I like it. Our choice of power potentially causes us to be forced to turn vast areas of land back over to nature. I'm not sure many people would agree, if it was smack in the middle of somewhere like England. No, road building, no more house building, no farming etc. Sounds wonderful for nature. Could we just do that bit without irradiating the place first?
"Not exactly true, judging by the proliferation of wildlife"
It is actually. While some wildlife may dig burrows, they do not affect the environment as much as humans do. the radionucleaotides are still there, in the soil and the dust. Radioactivity spiked when the recent Russia incursion disturbed the dust with their vehicles. As the dust settled within a few hours, so the levels fell.
That would not happen if people lived within the exclusion zone in significant numbers, making significant changes to the environment - digging ditches, farming, planting out their gardens etc, etc. You can't compare a relatively undisturbed environment with one subject to heavy human activity.
Solar, tidal, heat pumps and wind can power our societies. The alternative to fossil fuel does not have to be nuclear. The problems we have faced are lack of generation capacity, which improves with every passing year, and storage. Storage is actually easily fixed, and not with advanced chemical dependent batteries. Renewable energy can easily be stored as kinetic energy, in the form of gravity batteries, or converted to hydrogen by electrolysis and then transported to wherever it's needed.
Rather than coming up with dangerous nuclear alternatives, which are hideously expensive to initially build and then decommission, we should spend that money on reducing the demand for energy, for example by massively improving insulation.
Nuclear is expensive and dangerous. Don't give me the nonsense about it being safer than alternatives. Yes, as one-off incidents, it may be. But the effects of truly serious incidents are applicable for periods measured in millennia. If the Chernobyl exclusion zone is going to be dangerous for 20,000 years then we only need 1 major incident a century to render Europe uninhabitable for millennia. Our record with nuclear is not good. Anything man can make, can fail in unexpected ways. Anyone who says they can guarantee that we won't have such accidents is a liar or a fool.
Do you argue that the Chernobyl exclusion zone is unnecessary and presents no dangers?
The number of immediate deaths might be low and the danger from undisturbed radionucleotides low but what would happen if this event occurred in the middle of England? A thousand square mile area smack in the middle of the country. As long as it's undisturbed, risk might be low. But no farming, no road building, no disturbance, hopefully no fires in the undisturbed area. Dangerous for an estimated 20,000 years, as in the case of Chernobyl.
Anything humans can build can fail, and it only takes once to cause problems, and the duration of those problems is measured in millennia. How many other Chernobyls will happen in 20,000 years? Particularly with proliferation of reactors.
Before everyone jumps all over me, I agree with the problems this poses but.. I dislike illogical arguments.
"Ludvigsen, Nagaraja, and Daly argue that CSS can no more prevent the distribution of CSAM than antivirus scanning can prevent the distribution of malware."
So we shouldn't have antivirus scanning or laws against murder etc, because they won't stop all instances? That's ridiculous.
I get that many Register followers are disillusioned youngsters who have no clue of history or the realities of living under truly authoritarian regimes but the anti-Western diatribes and false equivalence with the likes of China and Iran is laughable. You have no idea of what it is like to live under truly authoritarian regimes. Is the West perfect? Far from it. But China and the like are far worse. There is no equivalence between the two. If the West was truly are tightly controlled, authoritarian region, you simply wouldn't be commenting here.
That is bizarre and leads to the conclusion that you are a privileged Westerner that has no idea of what living under a truly authoritarian regime is like. It is ludicous to assert that there is any comparison between living in a Western country and, say, China or Iran. "Marketing BS" and "subtle" implies they are really the same. You don't have a clue what the reality is.
"How about listening to children? Giving children clear opportunities to speak? Explaining that is not their fault?"
Which is done already and for some of those suggestions is not the role of the police.
Again, "Just do their jobs" is not simple. It is often used by those who refuse to help the police, refuse to talk to the police, don't like "grasses" but then expect the police to just "do their job".
"used to surface Decentralized Finance projects to potential investors."
Are they on a bloody submarine?! The word is "present".
Are people jealous of those of us who work in IT? We use words which are unfamiliar to the majority of people, because there is no alternative. These corporate cretins make up crap just for the sake of it.
Pretentious pillocks.
"BlokeInTejas makes a completely valid comparison"
No, it isn't. He, and you, miss the point. Amazon claim they don't sell your interests. Yes, if you go into a store and mention the weather, they may mention other products. What they don't do is add your comment to a centralized profile and then broadcast it to anyone on the high street willing to pay for it.
If I interact with Alexa for non-purchasing reasons then that should not be used to target me for ads or to build up the above mentioned profile.
Whether it listens all the time, is irrelevant to this point.
"Really not sure why you are paranoid at disclosing the name of the establishment"
How many customers said establishment has is irrelevant. The user's bank details are fair unique to him\her. Never give out any information that can be tied to any account you use, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. Who knows what information is being collected and collated now, or will be in the future.
Why take an unnecesary risk?
Whatever man can make, man can break.
I think most places do take customer data security seriously. But anyone can be caught out. One exploited zero day, one idiot user clicking the wrong thing, one incompetent developer, one greedy\disgruntled\vengeful insider, that's all it takes. If it's online, someone determined will find a way to breach the defenses.
A tolerant society does not have to tolerate that which threatens its existence. Trump is an idiotic, dangerous traitor who used the worst dregs of society to try to overthrow a democratically elected government. He used Twitter to engage in vitreolic attacks on individuals and the government, and those attacks stoked physical harms.
Complete freedom of speech should not be permitted. By all means state your case and question those in power particularly. But dangerous behavior should not be tolerated. The problem is that there is no reasonable discussion. You either follow Trump and accept any garbage he spews or you are the enemy subject to his vitreol and the physical dangers of his moronic followers.
Allowing Trump on Twitter would be bad for Twitter in the long term, because the silent majority of at least minimally sane people would convince advertisers (whose ads make up 88% of Twitter's income) to leave or face boycotts. And yes, boycotts are just as acceptable expressions of freedom as speech is. No, I don't just want to avoid hearing Trump; I don't want him to have a platform on which to spout lies and hatred that cause direct harm to people. No, his right to spew danger does not take precedence over lives of the capitol police offices killed and injured on the day, and shortly after, of his traitors attack on government.
Trump belongs in the sewer. He wants to be on Twitter\Facebook etc, because he can't reach the millions he wants on other apps. Dedicated free-speech, Nazi-leaning platforms never succeed because the majority of people are not extremists.
There has been no obsession with crushing Russia. For years the opposite has been true. The West is rightfully assisting a sovereign country with its resistance to an unprovoked monstrous attack and has only been doing so for a little over a month.
Plenty of attention has been paid to China.
"In the second place, an "urgent" ticket is generally considered as something that must be fixed this semester."
A ridiculous statement. In our university, an urgent ticket requires immediate attention. How long it takes to fix depends on what the problem is, of course.
"But it's always struck me as odd. LEOs have to obey surveillance laws, big tech gets allowed to do bulk data collection without much in the way of limitation or regulation."
The difference is that LEOs observe people who do not know they are being observed and have no way to opt out. A judge has to agree that a suspect has almost certainly broken the law to a degree that warrants covert observation. Everyone can ultimately opt out of Google's data collection: don't use their devices. You agree to essential data being collected. Google chooses what that is.
Possibly why the "dumb-phone" market is surging at the moment. People opting out.
"We may also need to have remote pilots monitoring cars running in self drive to avert problems if the passengers miss them"
That will only work if these cars are going to moving in feet per hour. The reaction time at any reasonable speed will be far too slow.
And no one has moved any goal posts. AV are not up to human standards at the moment and will not be any time soon.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022
