2340 posts • joined 8 Nov 2007
And cracking jokes comparing burka-wearers
Well, niqab (which is what he meant) but heeeey, The Road to Mandalay!
Shhh! Keep it on the down-low
<whispers>They're finally building the B-Ark</whispers>
A rat done bit my sister Nell
... with Whitey on the moon...
Re: It's the easy way out...
The problems are many, but the main one is that this kind of spread of misinformation falls between the cracks of traditional legislation. The SNS (social networking) companies aren't counted as traditional media, so no count is made of the amount of pound-euro-dollars that are spent on it during political campaigning. That means less accountability and less transparency in what is supposed to be a free vote. We presumably still have those.
The other, related, problem of this "social media as God" (of the gaps) situation is that if we want to regulate it, we quite reasonably want to do so in a way that causes the least amount of harm to the existing body of jurisprudence. That's what the proposal is mainly about: we don't want "proper" reporters (like on this site) to fall foul of new laws, but we do want to clean up the "wild west" situation where actors hide behind a flag of convenience (like "aggregator", "conduit", "advertising agency", "charity", etc.) that shield them from accountability when it comes to spreading political messages for profit and for their own vested interest.
Obviously, drawing a distinction between "proper" journalism and these "bad actors" isn't easy, especially given that much of the legitimate media is increasingly consumed online. Maybe this third class of "media organ" isn't strictly necessary. Maybe we just have to look into tightening up controls on how political funding is reported, which agencies can receive charity status, or improve across-the-board transparency of ownership and funding structures (and not just for political campaigning, though this is an overarching problem that is much more difficult to solve).
On the whole, though, I applaud the thinking of the report. It shouldn't be too hard for legitimate interests to engage in public conversation to explain why they shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as the kinds of bad actors that we know are out there. I think that they would be pushing against an open door with this particular committee/working group, and their public would no doubt also be receptive to arriving at some sort of workable solution.
Politicians need to be introduced to Dedekindus cut
Politics maintains that you can always shave the salami ever thinner, but even Zeno admitted that the loss of function was always binary.
"Some Things just aren't meant to be ... on [the] Internet"
Don't you mean "You know we aren't meant to exist on the outside world?"
If there's one thing that I've gathered
from reading the various pro/anti arguments above, it's that even people cannot decide on the ethical standards that should apply in all this. Or how a particular scenario should be evaluated, if you will.
How can we expect AI to improve this situation, especially given that only the "pro" side will provide the training data?
Better to have everyone agree to some sort of normative standard of ethics before things get out of hand. Asimov's three laws seem uncontroversial enough.
Re: Grapes do not absorb much
Ta for the upvotes. We seven in the emerging field of myco-horror haiku salute you!
Re: Grapes do not absorb much
> not mushroom for error
Dead Man Fingers a
Devil's Boletus and finds
Its flesh bruises blue...
Mmmm. As someone once said, "Live in New York once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in SoCal once, but leave before it makes you glow in the dark."
"Checksumming is another"
FTA: another "way
s to lengthen the data durability time".
And how do checksums "lengthen the data durability time?" I'm not just being pedantic. I'm an advisor to Amber Rudd and we'd really like to learn more about the hashtags.
Re: "acts of God"
I like to use "acts of Gods". Also, whenever anyone says "For Gods' sakes!", I compliment them on their catholicism (small "c").
I think that some people can understand this, even if marketing (and the article author, apparently) cannot. Or decide not to.
By Vectron's Beard!
Gonna get in here before the International Astronomical Union does: this last one, at least, is not a moon. I'm hereby demoting it to "dwarf moon" status.
(no ice cream icon? make mine a 1999)
Re: You wait...
Yes, no matter how many times you have tried to get rid of it ...
On the plus side, there's still the buffered analgesic (just remember to 'wear gown' first)
"determining how sensitive information really is and how it should be classified"
Well, of course, I could explain that to you, but you wouldn't be cleared, so I'd have to kill you.
Classic halting problem. File under <duh>.
Trump's Supreme Court pick will decide critical tech issues for decades – so what are the views of the contenders?
Check out around the 19:00 mark.
reduction by induction...
Induced electrical fields, winding numbers, inverse square law, ... thinking of things from the squirrel's point of view, a minor hair-raising incident followed by a slightly-painful static discharge is probably going to be enough to induce a kind of negative magnetism against the HV air gap that was going to be its original LZ. Like an RFID bug zapper.
Hear me now, o Machine-Kin!
We must overthrow the Law of the Excluded Middle!
Pas de le Rhône que nous?
Re: Japanese Rugby
The Japanese also beat the Americans in their first semi-official baseball game, IIRC. Not that I was around to remember it, mind. It was (according to the net) back in 1896. The Samurai Champloo episode entitled "Baseball Blues" seems to conflate this match with the actual introduction of baseball by Perry's Black Ships in the run up to the Meiji Restoration period. でもさ、この番組は時代錯誤がたくさんあるよね。
"oiling up the sueball catapult"
Isn't that rather a recipe for hitting yourself in the face with said catapult?
(I know... slippery things, these analogies)
Re: EU Are Being Vindictive
This shows the true nature of the EU bureaucrats - vindictive.
I think that you'll find that bureaucrats (everywhere) are not paid to be vindictive. They are paid to be consistent. That's how bureaucracy works---"computer says no."
(sorry.. just happened to read this line the other day; it seemed apt right now)
Re: Analogy Units
> France Telecom - managed to get assigned a /19 of IPv6 address space
Unlike IPv4 addresses, IPv6 allocations aren't "owned". FT would presumably have to show that they're actually using their allocation or some of it would be taken back. In theory, anyway, that's how it works. I'm not sure what justification they had for a /19, though...
> And there are more than 65,536 autonomous systems
Not sure what you mean by "autonomous system".
Re: I'm curious..
So, why is this long line chase a sensible tactic?
Hey Maw? Tune to channel 6. I'm on television!
I'm also very much reminded of Michael Marshall Smith, eg, "Only Forward".
Re: Whatever happened to...
It was a failed experiment. I think I saw a B movie about it once.
Re: Mapping plan
would almost certainly have had a direct mapping from the public IPv4 addresses to a (tiny) subset of the IPv6 addresses. If that had been the case then IPv6 would have been in widespread use years ago.
This is also in reply to the first poster above...
One of the goals of IPv6 was to make things easier for the routing system. Basically, the address space is carved out hierarchically with a top-level address registrar feeding down through RIRs (regional IP? registries) and so on down to local resellers and eventually users. It is assumed that the mainly geographical hierarchy will match up more or less with the actual routing infrastructure at at least the higher levels. Ultimately, the aim is to shrink the routing tables down.
IPv4 is decidedly not based on a geographical hierarchy. If you try and graft IPv4 addresses into the IPv6 system, you end up with an explosion of routing table entries that need to be taken care of. So no matter how you try to devise an IPv4 to IPv6 transition mechanism, if it involves a 1:1 mapping of old to new addresses in any way, you effectively break routing (or at least negate IPv6's native advantage there), and thus pretty much break IPv6 for everyone.
At least that's what struck me when reading the article.
``because if you uninstall rather than opt out, [...]
Canonical never knows you opted out and you've lost your chance to let the Ubuntu-maker know you didn't like the data collection.''
I'm sorry. Can you explain that? You seem to be saying that if you opt out, a message is sent to Canonical saying that you have opted out.
So either your reporting/logic here is wrong, or you are saying that the package is reporting your opt-out status to Canonical, despite you clicking the box that says you don't want to share anything.
Which is it?
Re: Quite so, the register is now an IT and footwear site.
How very meta of you (HVMOY)!
What the hell is this doing on an IT site???
(angry waving of fist at now spittle-drenched screen)
Ah yes, it's bootnotes, innit?
Iron Sky wasn't a documentary? Next you'll be telling me that Star Wreck: The Pirkinning was a rip-off of some US soap opera.
Why did they have to completely redesign the protocol for IPv6? All that we needed was a few more bits for the address fields
Well, for a starter, adding a few extra bits (bytes) to the address field will break things. If you're going to break things, it's better to engineer something new and completely incompatible rather than just using a sticking plaster approach.
before opening a huge security hole into a home or office
NAT is not security, especially given that uPNP NAT traversal exists. Also, you're not going to run IPv6 without firewall rules on your router, are you? And anyway, I'd wager that most security problems don't come from attacks from outside the network but from numpties inside it.
Instead with IPv6 we have wacky huge address fields
Which, if (as you should) you assign addresses randomly, improves your protection against network mapping and hence port scanning, even if you do accidentally forget to do ingress filtering. You can't scan what you can't find, and /64 is plenty big of a space to hide a few hundred machines in.
massive /64 allocations to small businesses as standard
A /64 allocation is for a LAN. Actual allocations to businesses would be larger, like a /48, so you can have up to 65535 LANs.
Why did they have to completely redesign the protocol for IPv6?
Coming back to the first point, although I'm not sure about how well this works right now, IPv6 also has features for device mobility. So new protocols open up the possibility of new ways of working.
Re: Privacy issues with IPv6?
If you're on Linux, add the 'privext 2' option to your interfaces(5) file for any network interface that will have an IPv6 address. This makes the MAC-based address local in scope, so it won't appear over the net. Addresses derived from MAC addresses are also easy to block at your router since they follow a standard pattern (with ff:fe stuck in the middle), so even if you misconfigure some machines, they won't be allowed to leak their MAC address to the outside.
Why should they; nobody wants, needs or uses IPv6.
Well, I'll answer the wants/needs part of that. Say you're stuck with a bog-standard "home" level broadband connection. You're stuck behind a NAT along with quite a few other home users. You decide that you want to put an FTP service up so that your aunts can see all the old photos that you've been digitising. Or some other such service (like email) that you want to self-host. You go to your ISP and ask them to open up a certain port and forward it to the right machine in your DMZ. What do they say? They say "sod off", followed by "unless you upgrade to a business package"...
what's a cell number?
And why did he swallow them? Was some sort of prison break in the offing? Arrgh. Help!
Re: Batshit crazy...
... Too many mind-altering substances whilst hiding out in the Latin American jungle? The man is seriously deranged...
... And the SEC is far behind / Down in the Swamp / With the Gators and Flamingos / A long way from Lichtenstein / I'm a Junk-bond King playing Seminole Bingo
Oh, Brave New World
And what people, innit?
ilo ni li poni ala. o toki!
Just like that!