By golly, it's clean clear to Flag Town, c'mon. Yeah, that's a big 10-4 there, Pig Pen, yeah.
247 posts • joined 14 Jul 2021
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Obviously jurisdiction is important, so I'm talking England and not the USofA.
In English law the absolute definitions would be irrelevant, as they're essentially arbitrary. Rather the principle of the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" would be used.
I don't know if that's applicable across the UK/GB.
It would be reasonable for said Man to read FSD as meaning FSD, so clearly deceptive I would imagine. The courts may see it differently, but that'd suck.
Edit: conversely, the drink that advertises itself with "gives you wings" would not "fool da Man" - he'd have to be waaaaay below the average man to think the drink actually did give you wings! (or on some top grade A class) :D
In the UK drivers may learn to drive, and be licensed for, automatic cars only. They're then not permitted to drive manual shift vehicles (without re-testing).
Surely drivers wishing to use automated vehicles should be tested and licensed as such. They could be licensed for Level (X) automation and below.
If L2 automation is sold as Fully Self Driving, what would they call L5 automation? "Really Honestly Truly Fully Self Driving"?
The misnomers are tantamount to cure-all snake oils, just wrong, and should be followed up as criminal misrepresentation. Legal action should be by the Government(s), as they (if willing) can out-lawyer the corporate.
I don't disagree Mike. I may be incorrect in stating the post was head gamekeeper - unsurprisingly there's not a blog or Guardian article covering this. I've seen it in print somewhere, but dust in the wind.
 In security loyalty should always be assumed absent. No agent, double- or triple- should be trusted. But they exist and are used. Loyalties do change genuinely. This case is unusual in that, even though it's almost certainly a crime there really was no victim as the bank was just evaporating the cash anyway.
 Agreed. I don't comment (or have info, referenced or hearsay) regarding other aspects of his skill set. There was no (security) breach.
As I can't cite any references, it's understandable if the anecdote is treated as myth. I personally accept it, both as plausible and through those that have relayed it to me.
An actual white hat would never have taken any money...
I fully agree.
However, it does seem more and more like an inside job, either a theft attempt or a publicity stunt.
Mr WH takes funds.
Mr Poly gets cosy with Mr WH.
Mr WH climbs into bed with Mr Poly and secures their systems "to infinity and beyond".
Mr Poly claims "We're so safe! Run with us!"
If Mr WH does not go onboard with Poly it was probably a theft gone wrong, if he does it's more likely publicity IMHO.
In the '80s this happened with a major UK bank, one of the big five.
They knew one of their DP guys had fled the country with £Oodles. It was certainly "real money" and they knew he'd been putting it in a holding account before exiting-stage-left. But they had no idea where the funds had originated - there were no ledgers/transactions showing a loss, all balanced.
He was tracked down to Spain (I think). It was agreed the whole case would be dropped, he could keep the dosh and have a job as chief security bod at the bank if he spilled the beans and blocked whatever exploit he'd used. He accepted, and both parties held up their end of the deal.
How did he do it? He had noticed that in transactions involving exchange rates or interest etc, fractions of pennies  were being truncated not rounded - the fractions were disappearing into thin air. So rather than them evaporating he put those fractions in to an account he controlled. All real money, no trace.
 Many decimal places, word length I think.
PS. Does anyone else get pissed off with languages using "round half to even", aka bankers' rounding? It's crap for anything other than averaging out financial transactions, such as *anything using mathematics*. Fekkin bankers!
In part covered by my post above ("explicit memory vs implicit memory")
I'll add to that that humans are here as, so far, we haven't failed a Darwin test. The bots we're making have to rely on us to be their "natural selection". We'll (they'll?) get there - if it doesn't work, try something else. But the evolutionary curves are at a very, very different point on said curve.
A significant difference is in the memory functions of the two entities (human and machine).
Explicit Memory vs Implicit Memory
Humans have both types of memory, and use their unconscious memories (implicit = non-recall).
The bots only have the explicit memories.
So the meatbag has the advantage, ergo the shortening in the learning curve human vs bot that you mention.
[There other factors that give the human the advantage..... for now muahahahaaaa!]
Your satire describes nicely how the poor(er)
might will pay the price.
Well, we wouldn't want those unfortunate profit makers of the world to suffer just because of their own shenanigans - would we?!
Proxy wars are still a thing, carefully
monitored coordinated by those with the vested interest. Keeping an eye on Africa?
Enemy image is still a thing, and required by governments to ensure that their population knows "we're right, they're wrong". (I'm not talking about oppressed populations here, just the concept.)
So yeah, major powers don't want an open show down, too costly. But sabre rattling is cheap. This applies to technological infrastructure attacks as well as open warfare. Tit-for-tat would ensue, and all parties would suffer. It's the new nuclear stalemate.
--- They will be dictated by the UK via the USA ---
The UK owns the third largest debt of the USA. It's a meager ~$370bn compared to India (~$1.3tn) and China (~$1.1tn). But it's way past lend/lease.
The UK is doing what it does best - manipulating. It outsources its armed forces requirements to the US - armament, ordinance and personnel. It doesn't help the women, men or children that are its assets (that's what UK citizens are, assets of the state by definition - bye bye common law. No binding constitution. Not even a national flag.).
More dosh flows through the UK (offshore shell companies etc), ie the UK establishment, than any other nation.
Forget the mainstream press, or any other media. The UK establishment is very good at its international connivances, at the sufferance of its citizens.
Fuck the proles. Still, at least the weather's nice.... ahem.
...it doesn't show a continuous financial reward...
Much like Health and Safety.
Most H&S related incidents are limited locally, few have wide geographical impact (exceptions being core meltdowns and the like).
Because H&S risk is observable by the "commoner" it has been addressed. Yeah, it took a while. ICT risk is not so easily understood by non-techies (cf safe backdoored encryption as desired by FUD pushers). So, not only is pushing safeguards through legislation retarded, it's unlikely (in my mind) that it'll be done correctly. I'd like to optimistic and hope I'm proven wrong.
In a thread a week or two back someone asked "What's wrong with capitalism?". You've answered that nicely.
Focussing on ICT, the unfettered reliance on information systems, specifically internetworking, by (essentially) all industries has created a house of cards. This is not only limited to capitalist states, but as you say, they inherently are not regulated sufficiently. This needs addressing by those knowledgable, ie. not politicians with a limited time in office. But parliaments create laws, so the relationship between the politicians and the "knowledgable" needs to be managed first.
"I also think it's interesting that they're offering research grants towards doing research for any mobile devices and not just iPhones."
Well, naturally Corellium wouldn't have a singular focus on Apple for any reason would they?
So, now it's the third party researcher that chooses the target. Corellium covered. GJ Corellium :)
Edit: Being less cynical, it is a Good Thing (tm)
...we find it difficult keeping attention when we are not actively engaged.... it is a serious flaw.
Totally agree, cognitive loading is a huge issue in this context.
Those in jobs that require high attention to detail train, train and train repeatedly. Even then, when they're in the "real" situation ("this is not a drill") they are human and therefore fallible. Any mistakes are fed back in to further training. They train to anticipate and handle cognitive loading, so handle situations better.
For the hoi polloi, reactions in pressure situations are more likely to be dire. No training. No anticipation. No contingencies prepared.
So giving partial automation to someone that's happy to "check on their dog" is simply daft.
[I've never understood why a driving license is essentially for life. Bad habits form. You can't (UK) hold a forklift license for more than a few years without re-testing. But 3 tonnes for Mercedes on a public road and off you go.]
 Think: advanced police drivers; fire officers; pilots...
Agreed. There are unknowns. But if they could store the data in the first place then there must be the ability to store the same data elsewhere. I really cannot imagine that budget would impede this considering the nature of the data.
As an aside, I remember looking at holographic storage decades ago (IIRC gallium arsenide & lithium niobate). I calculated that a cubic metre of the stuff would store all data ever generated in the universe. It was a bit of a bitch to actually get the data in there at the time though. Anyone know how that's progressing?
Back to reality though, as Cybersaber says above, tape is good, cheap, and it's never ending (ish).
but I had to use your comment
Absolutely fine by me :)
I wanted to mention the significance of this, but I'll condense it to: what fucking muppets!
Following your original post's title "This is why we still use tape libraries" then yeah, if it's critical data then use multiple media stored in multiple locations.
Here, I think we deserve one or two of these --->
A backup is not a mirror site. The back up is performed. The backup is separated from the source then verified on a discrete system, then taken off line. (Put into a fireproof safe off-site and guarded by <insert superheroes of choice>.)
The migration is performed and the target is verified against the source.
Only when the new system is shown to be working is the source even considered for zeroing. IMO I'd keep the source for as long as is practical (to the heat death of the universe).
Taking the backup off-line prevents the fat fingered cock-up, as you say "if your backups are not also copied offline" - so keeping the BU on-line is numptyville.
they're still vulnerable to "who, me?" <-- I like that :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022