Re: Judge Canut was it?
And his demonstration is still of use hundreds of years later! If the only thing in dispute is whether he was in on his own joke, I’d say he did a pretty good job.
44 posts • joined 8 Jan 2019
Now now, let’s not exaggerate to make a point. If you put suicides in a different category from gun violence, the US number is only 14,600. If you adjust for the population difference from US to UK, the equivalent US number would only be 2,970.
There! 2,970 vs 70. Both numbers have a “70” in them so clearly there’s no problem here. ( /s )
[quote]The only point of generating profit is to create emergency funds for a rainy day for future problems.[/quote]
What? No, this is stupid. Corporations generate profit to allow reinvestment in growth, and to attract shareholders. Both are absolutely necessary for the long term health of a company.
You can limp on for a little while with zero or even negative profits, and arguably it’s correct to expect that as a result of fines for unethical behavior. But after you’ve paid the fine you have to be able to go back to making a profit again.
A tool like this is only so good as the people wielding it. Turing & co were good people wielding their tools for a good purpose. Less good people would later use some of the principles they developed for bad purposes. And it appears that today, someone has used NSO’s tools for bad purposes (possibly NSO themselves, but I don’t know enough to say either way).
While I appreciate your sentiment, you’ve missed the mark on both sides of this one.
—there are LOTS of calls to limit the availability of guns.
—This group didn’t call for reducing access to encryption. They are creating tools for targeted attacks on encryption, which is still bad, but in a different way.
They absolutely paid that out in operating costs. The numbers you listed give 18.5% profit margin, which is a great number- Apple’s margin is higher than that, but most companies are far less, usually single digits.
This doesn’t really counter your other point that they could afford to be less strict here - I just want you to come at it from the right direction.
Actually they can (at least in the US - I’m not familiar with how it works in the UK). The paperwork is a little complex, but it’s definitely a thing you can do.
You can’t do that AND be a conventional employee at the same time though. You either have to be a small business owner, or a contractor, meaning you give up on the various labor laws that protect conventional employees. (I gather US labor laws aren’t held in high regard here, so you may feel that’s a good trade).
Nixon was more or less the definition of the Republican Party (for his day- it’s changed somewhat since then).
Bush1 and Bush2 also pretty closely aligned with “the party”.
Now Reagan...you are aware that, like Trump, he was a Democrat most of his life? And, like Trump, his policies were pretty drastically different than what EITHER party had been doing up to that point. Reagan and Trump both kind of just did their own thing.
What Reagan did have going for him is that, AFTER implementing new policies, he became popular enough that the Republican Party was sort of dragged kicking and screaming into adopting many of them. But the party leaders certainly didn’t LIKE Reagan’s politics.
Time will tell if Trump plays out the same way or not.
Problem with your theory- Eisenhower wasn’t a Republican. He was a non-partisan war hero who was so popular from the war days that BOTH parties asked him to accept their nomination, and he took the republican one basically just as a change of pace after 5 straight terms of Democrat control. Dems also had supermajorities in Congress, which they had held for over 20 years (with the exception of the 2-year term immediately after the death of FDR).
Assigning anything that happened in the 50’s as a “Republican” policy is just fiction.
The piece you are missing here is that clickjacking always involves at least two target elements. If Target-1 is the element you are really trying to click, and Target-2 is the fraudulent one which is invisibly sitting on top of Target-1, then you will click on Target-2 by accident. At that point, this defense is supposed to think “wait, Target-2 has not been visible for the minimum time, so let’s ignore that click”.
It’s an imperfect solution as you still don’t get to Target-1, but at least you don’t get redirected to the Malware link.
He’s making fun of a typo (now fixed in the current version of the article) where “crown prosecutor” was written as “c prosecutor” instead. Since “c prosecutor” doesn’t have an established definition, he made a joke about pointer abuse, which is a common issue with poorly written C language coding.
There - have I thoroughly sucked all the fun out of the joke yet?
This. And also remember we’ve learned through other recent high profile cases that the FBI doesn’t record suspect interviews, so there’s no proof. Even if you don’t think they would make this up from scratch (and to be fair I don’t think they would)...he could easily have used words with more than one possible interpretation, but those words are now gone, replaced with just an officer said “He admitted it!”
Unfortunately damaging the relationships in the first place was probably unavoidable here. NPM may have been (relatively) well LIKED before this misadventure, but they were still losing money and you can’t keep that up long term. Any change big enough to turn around their profit problems was guaranteed to piss off SOMEONE.
That said, there’s clearly a choice between handling business changes gracefully vs putting your foot in your mouth, and getting involved in lawsuits (and losing them) strongly suggests the latter.
I could be misremembering, but isn’t this the one that said she was against it but got outvoted? Hard to say her opinion would have changed much by reading the report then. Only thing is maybe she’d have been able to make a better case to get someone to listen to her.
While the law may allow companies to be downright evil, there are plenty that choose not to be, and stories like these make me appreciate my own employer much more. We get actual time off, pay for unused time off in case of separation, pay for extended time out due to disability/sickness etc, and they treat us like real people.
Then again, wife’s company is currently reminding us that their policies are considerably less employee friendly. Can’t win ‘em all.
<quote>Normal people prefer the old-fashioned word "lies".</quote >
Exactly this. The only thing new about “fake news” in the last decade is the label. Lies have been a part of public statements and yes, even journalism, for as long as we’ve been able to print.
No disrespect at El Reg - I trust you guys more than most sources. But in general, any wise reader should always keep their cynicism handy on the internet.
I’m sorry, but how is that better? Yes it’s technically private property, but that doesn’t make it ACCEPTABLE to deface, does it?
Or are you just objecting to Wikipedia using the term “Public Property” for itself at all? So long as they do a pretty good job of acting the part, I’m not going to hold that bit of hubris against them.
Seconded. Technically I bought mine firsthand, but I’ve owned it long enough now it might as well be preowned. As long as I can get the battery replaced when I need it (which is now actually, I need to set a time to go do that) - why should I pay $1k and get rewarded with a screen that no longer fits in my pocket?
Bradley ‘Chelsea’ Manning owed loyalty to the US, and betrayed that loyalty in the worst way possible. He deserves everything he got.
Julian Assange, on the other hand, never owed us anything so there couldn’t be any betrayal. I don’t LIKE the guy, but I see a fundamental difference in his case, and I honestly hope the UK rejects the extradition request.
Maybe you could split the difference somehow and make an agreement that the extradition is only valid for the computer hacking charge, and the espionage charges would be on hold until after he was released back to the UK following any sentence? Not sure if that works but it’s a thought.
Nothing here is really Huawei’s fault - they’re just the coincidental closest target to impact point of a greater trade war. All the posturing against Huawei specifically is just that - posturing.
But that’s not the same as saying the greater trade war is without merit. It absolutely makes a difference how overall trade between the US and China is structured, and a certain segment of our market has been saying for a long time that we had the short end of the stick here and needed to change things. Even the El Reg author acknowledged that.
Of course it’s much more complex to ask whether this tactic is actually going to fix anything, or just make things worse. Your mileage may vary.
And I can imagine that if you are neither an American nor a Chinese citizen, then you don’t really stand to gain anything from this fight no matter who wins, so it’s understandable if you’re more frustrated than anything else. I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to jump into a fight that doesn’t affect them - just remember that it does affect someone else.
Last I heard, brain interfaces like this were very cool for disabled people who couldn’t use the standard interfaces, but for anyone else, the standard interfaces were still faster and more precise. Has that changed?
Until it does, I have to assume this would be a narrow tool for very specific tasks, and not replacing all of their previous weapons.
[quote]Risk of Russian government running covert misinformation campaigns during US elections: completely acceptable.[/quote]
This has to be taken in perspective given that our own media runs overt misinformation campaigns during US elections, and also all the rest of the time. What’s another few people lying at you going to add to that?
Other than that, though, spot on. ;)
<quote>Now if those pages existed due to a government requirement they existed, well then the government should point the right people to them.</quote>
That is why they exist (technically an agreement with the irs rather than a legislative requirement, but close enough for this purpose), and the government does link to them. The trick is, the government link is typically the ONLY link that gets you there, and the companies go to great lengths to avoid letting you see those pages any other way.
You could argue about exactly how clever you would need to be to see through the manipulation and get the promised free version- but why use hypotheticals when we already have data results? Of the people eligible for the free filing, about 95% didn’t find it. That’s a problem.
Sort of? As I understand it, it’s been rather a long time since there was a fight with anything close to evenly matched AirPower on both sides, so a lot of this is hypothetical.
When you have an Air Force and they don’t, you can afford to take more risks to get visual IDs, etc. When both sides are evenly matched, you’d want every edge you can get, which means starting to fire from as far away as possible. But since no one has actually needed to do it in so long, we probably don’t know exactly how effective it would be and what percentage of fights would devolve into close-range dogfights.
Unfortunately I just realized why this won’t work. The scammer’s telco and your telco are likely different companies, and only the scammer’s telco has enough info to do the blocking. So even if you use an honest telco, so long as there’s at least one dishonest one for the scammers to use, they can still get through.
What needs to be done is not to remove the ability to spoof, it's to take the power to do it out of the hands of phone customers
I think you’re on the right track, but it can be even simpler than this. The phone companies should only allow a CID to be spoofed to a number controlled by the same billing account. That way you can use any of YOUR numbers, but not anyone else’s. This mostly works for international calls too, as any business that actually buys a (for example) US phone number therefore must have at least some business presence in the US, which can be a target if the gov has to come looking for you. Of course this requires the telecoms to put at least a little good faith effort into screening cross-border new number requests, which might be asking too much.
If I’m understanding this correctly, this particular issue was caused by a subtle change in how the AOA data was used between generations.
In prior generations, the AOA was displayed to the pilot to aid situational awareness, but didn’t DO anything directly. As other commentators have noted, you can generally get by without this info, but it becomes important in some unusual situations (which you can mostly compensate for with experience). This the info isn’t considered critical, so the gauge is an option.
But now on the Max, that info directly feeds into part of the plane’s flight control AI, and if the sensor is bad, you can crash. Suddenly knowing that the sensor is bad becomes much more important- but this change in priority didn’t make it into the display design. After all, this change is intended to be transparent to the pilots to avoid retraining costs. The whole goal was NOT to tell them anything is different.
Yeah, that’s what makes actions like this so complex to pass judgment on. Their stated goal is actually pretty reasonable, and the risk they are trying to avoid is probably real. But in the process they are handing themselves massive new powers of oppression, should they decide to exercise them.
What do you do? Just get less villainous leadership?
Well, yes, but... how wrong are they? Copyright/patents aren’t a fundamental human right, they’re a product of law. And if the law that establishes them has no jurisdiction over you, and the authors of that law have no reason to even consider your interests (because it’s intended to help citizens of another country)...how much respect do you give that law?
International trade treaties should theoretically still hold, but even there, complying with another country’s copyright is a concession to get something else, not an obvious point of agreement.
Well you’re like half right. The CEO is technically correct that the accidents were caused by a chain of related problems and that the MCAS couldn’t destroy the planes ALONE. But it was clearly PART of that chain of problems, and several other parts of the chain were inside Boeing as well. Not the entire chain (as then you’d have seen every 737-max crash instead of just 2), but ...enough that by the time the planes reached the airlines, the list of things that had to go wrong at the same time to cause a disaster was much shorter than it should be. So you get 2 crashes in 6 months instead of 2 in 20 years.
The CEO knows all of this but is hoping to distract us with the “it’s complicated” handwave long enough that no one will look too closely at Boeing’s part in the mess.
The thing is, it didn’t fail, it succeeded . They let him go with no charges and didn’t seize his property, so I’d call that a win. Yes it took 3 hours, probably because they were pissed they couldn’t bully him into compliance- so by all means hate on the CBP, but the guy won.
I had reason to look up what the winsxs folder was doing the other day when I noticed my (work provided) virus scanner getting stuck in there. Most of the files in winsxs are actually links, not real files, but set up with some special kind of crazy link that tricks windows into THINKING that the files are in two places at once. So both the original folder and the copy folder include all those files in their space estimate- but there’s really still only one of them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020