2059 posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
Oh yes... the army and the queen collaborating (!) to overthrow a duly elected government, in order to overturn a referendum decision.
What a brilliant idea, I can't begin to imagine how that might backfire.
No, wait a minute - that should have read "I can't begin to imagine how that could do anything other than backfire in the most horrible and explosive way possible".
If you want to see England (not the UK any longer) led by President Farage, locked in a civil war against Generalissimo Corbyn, then that might be the way to do it. If you'd rather go on living in some semblance of peace, however, it's probably not such a good idea.
Re: Use our Labs
Ideas are ten a penny. I'm really not worried about Microsoft stealing those.
Implementation, that's where the money is. And by the time you're ready to tackle that, you should have long since graduated from this "playground" environment anyway.
Re: Blakes7 Internet Federation
Blake's 7 already had its reboot. It was called Firefly. Sadly didn't last.
Checksum checking would catch some small fraction of uploads, but as already mentioned, there are many, many workarounds that are both easy and well known.
To defeat all these well known workarounds, copyright owners would likely end up registering thousands of checksums per protected work, dealing with all the variations as they find them. Not long before that process gets automated, and all anticipated variations get registered at the time of publication. And then you have a situation where the index of forbidden checksums is growing by several million entries per day.
And that's assuming private individuals don't get into the act. In law, everything we write or photograph or record is a new copyrighted work. How long till someone creates a tool to register the checksums for every comment we type on a blog? If that happens, we're looking at billions of new entries per day. More, if the tool also applies the "minor variations" algorithm.
Apart from the sheer overhead of managing all that data, and comparing every new item to them, which frankly I can't even imagine, you also create a rapidly growing probability of false positives. After a few years of this regime, not only would it be a coin toss whether each new item was allowed, it would also take several minutes to do the screening. So then you have a situation where people don't know, often until much later, whether their posting was successful or not.
Re: Lies and lying lyers.
Doesn't work for me. If I show up a sales guy for the lying liar he is, somehow I end up as the bad guy. I've come to the conclusion that everyone already assumes they're lying, and drawing attention to it is considered bad form.
Re: What's the difference between...
Yeah... I'm still not seeing anything in that definition that can be used to tell whether a given incident was a DDOS or not. Not unless someone actually says "yeah, we did that".
Re: When it is a Net bad thing
On the one hand, I agree with you about e-voting. But it is a solution to a problem, namely "how can we make it possible for some companies to make money out of the election process, which we can then funnel from taxpayers to our supporters?"
On the other hand, you are not thinking through the dependencies between online systems and offline, to which the British system is far from immune. Think about, for instance:
- online maps and directions to polling stations - hackers can send voters to the wrong places
- online voter registration - hackers could fraudulently register voters, or worse, deregister them before polling day
- or, they can just DDOS the registration site for six hours before the deadline closes. There's always a last-minute rush
- more subtly, change voter information - scramble names, addresses, dates of birth - so the records no longer match the voters. Voters could be transferred to the wrong rolls, so they're no longer on the list at their local polling station.
- if they get really ambitious, they could invent whole new, completely fictitious polling stations. Then someone could turn up at the count with a box of ballots from there.
Just because the voting itself is offline, doesn't mean it can't be hacked.
Re: What's the difference between...
Right, so it's defined by "intent". Which is impossible to know, unless someone confesses to it.
So from the victim's point of view, there is no meaningful definition.
Re: What's the difference between...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any such thing as a rigorous definition of a DDoS attack.
So it's basically an irregular verb: "I suffered a DDoS attack, you were unable to cope with a spike in traffic levels, they ran a poorly-designed shamtastic comment system."
I don't know first-hand, but I'd be prepared to bet there are a non-trivial number of blowhards in right-leaning (therefore, Obama-hating) media who keep saying this must be done, without having any idea of how to do it.
Posing this question to the public is a way of telling those people to put up or shut up.
It will do some good, but probably not as much as you'd think. Media blowhards are quite capable of banging on for years with zero basis in reality. (And then getting elected president.) The best you can hope is that Cruz himself will be shamed into shutting up about it in future, but I wouldn't put money even on that.
Laws like this are pointless, because the content that's been produced using the deepfakes technology has been created and posted online by anonymous individuals, who likely won't be deterred by legislation.
By that logic, laws against child porn are just as pointless.
Zelig inserts contemporary actors into old footage. No issue there. Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid would be more problematic - and it should be - except that the studio presumably owns all the footage, and clearly the rights that go with it would be written into the actors' contracts. Apart from that, I suspect that if you tried to make either one of these movies nowadays, you'd get far more trouble from copyright trolls than from this law.
Yes, thank goodness this technology has come along now. How many times have you thought "it sure would be great if there was such a thing as 'biopics', shame it's technically impossible to make them"?
Dear Hollywood: it's called "acting", you should try it sometime.
Let's face it, most code is breakable when a sufficient number of people are sufficiently motivated to break it. Nothing on Github has ever had to withstand that level of attack.
Maybe 1% of it really could. But I for one sure as heck wouldn't be able to identify which 1%.
Re: Unfortunately necessary
Virtually every major car manufacturer has their own electric vehicles, either on the road already or scheduled for launch within the next 2-3 years. And, unlike Tesla or some hypothetical new company, those companies have a profitable existing business to support their R&D.
With or without Tesla, electric vehicles are coming. I predict, within 10 years, at least one car in three on the roads will be electric. Probably more. Tesla as a company will never have more than a small fraction of that market even in the best case - they're a niche product, and their pricing pretty much guarantees they'll remain so.
Re: If only there were a politician with the courage to stand up to Bezos
"Standing up to people" is something you do when other people are stronger than you.
When you do it to someone who's in a weaker position than you, it's called "bullying".
What you're asking for is one bully to be controlled by a bigger one. Mind where that leads.
I'm feeling left out
I've never so much as seen an email from any of the new domains. As far as my inbox is concerned, the expansion ended with '.biz'.
Serious proposal: is there anything to be lost by simply blackholing every TLD not registered before 2010?
Re: cross-party support
If you've never witnessed cross-party support, it's because you haven't been paying attention.
In the UK right now, for instance, there's strong cross-party support for: Palestine; programs to fight malaria in developing countries; greater freedom for tied pubs (in Scotland); the Fitness for Human Habitation Bill; and many other issues.
What they all have in common is that they're not particularly controversial, and hence don't get a lot of news coverage. That's - really, implicit in the nature of "news" - it tends to focus on areas where the "correct" course isn't already well agreed, and is under debate.
That's not a bad thing.
"Damage and loss to the state of more than $5000"?
Odd, that figure seems very modest. Positively plausible, even.
What did he actually do to these servers, to meet this ludicrously low threshold?
Re: @ adam payne
Whatever the cause, there's still a valid question in "why did nobody foresee and take measures to prevent it?"Apparently, it's something that simply never occurred to either NHS management or Capita, despite both organisations' vast wealth of experience in this field (dealing with GPs on the one hand, dealing with the public sector on the other).
OK, you can't foresee everything. But you absolutely should try to, and when you fail, review why you failed and how you can do better next time.
My suspicion, based on nothing more than a few years' experience in project management and a cynical nature, is that Capita deliberately avoided asking questions that it thought would complicate the project and jeopardise some arbitrary deadline. So even if they did think of it, they would have kept quiet. I may be completely wrong, but if so... well, let's just say there's an awfully big pattern of failure still looking for an explanation.
Artificial intelligence... or advanced imitation? How DeepMind used YouTube vids to train game-beating Atari bot
Re: Major Overreach
Yeah... I'm not so sure. It seems to me that AI should be able to take a reasonable stab at what's "expected" by humans, if someone takes the trouble to train it on a relevant data set.
My phone's keyboard software is pretty good at guessing what I'm going to type. Rudimentary, of course, but for such a tiny and limited system using essentially zero resources, it's impressive.
That's easy for you to say.
In 2014, $416 billion was spent on maintaining US highways, and that's not including the cost of policing them, or the cost of building new highways, or vehicle inspections, driver education and licensing, or many other related costs. That's over $10 million per death, even excluding some of the largest costs. That's - not my idea of "completely ignored".
Re: I'd add to that line of thinking:
It's fair to compare accidents\fatalities involved per mile, but you should also consider the number of times that the safety features engaged successfully and prevented or reduced the severity of an accident.
No, you shouldn't. The reason being, those numbers are already included in the headline "accidents/fatalities per million miles", or whatever number you're looking at.
The trouble is that if you get a number for "times safety feature engaged", you have nothing to compare that number with. Human drivers don't, typically, make a systematic count of every time they have to brake to avoid crashing into the car in front - and if they did, the answer would be so subjective as to be meaningless anyway. So that number can only, at best, be a distraction.
We need numbers that can actually be measured with a reasonable degree of certainty and consistency. Number of accidents, and especially number of fatalities, are the only metrics that come close to meeting that requirement.
Re: Legal =/= moral or right
@DCFusor: The issue is, "do we want public servants following the law, or do we want them making their own private decisions?" That's not a strawman, that's precisely the point the OP raises. I'm just pointing out where else that logic might lead.
@GrumpyKiwi: If you don't consent to the laws, then lobby to change them. If your lobbying isn't successful, then that is the verdict of the democratic system you live in: "the governed" as a group have decided to consent, even if you as an individual dissent. You don't get to opt out of laws once passed, any more than you get to decide what the speed limit on any given road "should be".
@Harry Stottle: First, are you seriously comparing breaches of privacy with Nazi war crimes? If so I'm gonna have to declare the thread Godwinated, because that's ridiculous. Moreover, the Nuremberg defence relates to "following orders", which is separate from "following the law".
The most recent treaty on the subject, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, says:
1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.
When international law feels it necessary to spell out that "genocide or crimes against humanity" are "manifestly unlawful", I find it very hard to imagine a court bracketing "mail tampering" in the same category. In other words, the Nuremberg precedent is not relevant here. Not even close.
The Windrush scandal is different again. Capita unlawfully sent letters to people who shouldn't have received them. The issue there is precisely that they weren't following the law, but rather bowing to pressure from (presumably, though the detailed chain of blame is still coming out) politicians.
For myself, I want to see public servants following the law, as debated in parliament, and written, and published, and adjudicated by independent courts. I don't want them each obeying the little voice in their own heads, because that makes them basically unaccountable to anyone. And some of those voices are frankly scary.
Re: Legal =/= moral or right
Do you really want public employees making decisions about what is "moral or right" rather than "legal"?
Are you going to defend the cop who plants drugs in someone's pocket because they know he is a bad guy, even if he happens to be clean right now? The judge who leaks a rape victim's name because he has this gut feeling that she's lying? The minister who lies to parliament because the question she's been asked is "unfair"?
Laws are what we, as a society, have agreed is the minimum standard of "moral and right" that people should abide by. The whole reason we have them is precisely so that public servants don't have to go through their lives making these calls on the basis of their own internal moral compass every day. If you don't agree with the standard that's been set, the correct course is to change the law, not to claim that it's not the point.
Well, what's your evidence then?
I'm not saying the FBI is above making all this up, but I don't see any reason to doubt them on this subject. The only aspect of this claim that looks even slightly far-fetched is the (implied, not stated) idea that these are the only threats the FBI has been analysing this week.
Re: Wonder what would happen
I doubt if there are replacement services that would pop up overnight. What there is, however, is plenty of people smart enough to create one, if Google/Facebook were rash enough to leave the market open for them.
"Cutting Europe off for a month" would also provide those potential rivals with all the boost they need. They could market themselves as both the patriotic choice and the prudent one, the one that wouldn't be cut off arbitrarily on the whim of some unaccountable American. They wouldn't need to get up and running in 30 days - after a PR gift like that, they could take a year or so and still claim huge slices of the market.
I'm pretty sure that creating an opportunity like that is not on Google's or Facebook's roadmap.
Re: "The United Kingdom needs to face up to the..reality of Brexit,"
It would help if the EU would face up to that, too, and stop trying to punish the UK for having the temerity to vote wrong.
If one thing is more clear than anything here, it's that Barnier himself doesn't believe Brexit will happen. He thinks Britain will pull back at the last moment. Merkel, Macron, Juncker and others have been at pains to make it clear that's still an option, and frankly it's the one they expect to happen. I'm not sure about May - I think it's her preferred option, but she's increasingly coming to the realisation that it won't, which is why she looks so disheartened.
The trouble is that as long as everyone is labouring under that misapprehension, they're not treating the negotiations as "real". All this is just for show, it will only work if Brexit doesn't happen. There is, as far as I can tell, no contingency in place for the plan going wrong - just like there wasn't before the referendum.
It's really time to do something about that, because the current plan - to bluff and intimidate the British public into, by some far-from-clear means, pulling the plug on the whole thing - shows every sign of going truly appallingly wrong.
Re: Problem is ...
Every magazine has a very good idea of the age profile of its readers, and rest assured that information is presented to potential advertisers as part of the sales pitch.
Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to allow Facebook users to search for job ads meeting whatever conditions they specify, and then don't filter those results by criteria that the user doesn't specify. That way, any Facebook user would be able to view any job ad.
Re: Should result in summary judgement...
What if the law itself explicitly says that "you can contractually require people to break this particular law"? Because that's basically ICANN's case.
That's loser talk. A good deal to Trump is one where the other side has to take whatever crumbs you throw them or face bankruptcy.
There's a little-appreciated feature of "the art of the deal", which not having read his ghost-writer, I don't know if Trump even appreciates: in business negotiations, at least half the battle is "picking the right partner to negotiate with". You want to find someone who needs to make a deal more than you do. In the case of property development, it would be a struggling construction company and a cash-strapped landlord - there's seldom any shortage of both of those.
In international negotiations, you don't have that luxury: you can't just pick and choose your partners. I'm not sure whether Trump even sees the difference.
Re: OK, so they asked nicely
So long as some of the nasties stop, that's still a win.
Think of it like chemical weapons. Most civilised countries have stopped using those, at least most of the time. There are exceptions, but it's still a net improvement over the position 100 years ago.
Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.
Lots of people say they'd like to see a second referendum on Brexit. But when you start asking them what, specifically, the question should be, that consensus starts to break down.
Should it be a vote on the "final deal" negotiated between the UK and EU? A vote on remaining in the customs union? A rerun of the original vote? Those are all different things with different implications, and there's no sign of a pollable majority in favour of any one of them.
And think, assuming you could rerun the original vote, and assuming it went the way you want it to (which, itself, is a belief that's not supportable by reputable polling) - what do you think would happen then? Do you think the now-just-under-50% who won first time would quietly fade away, chastened, and learn to listen to their betters? You think the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the rest of the Leave press would see the error of their ways?
The fuck they would. You saw the bitterness that followed the "don't split" result in Scotland - imagine that amplified tenfold.
And in case you hadn't noticed, the rest of Europe is not doing a very good job of playing happy families right now. There are already openly-Eurosceptic parties in power in Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy (Italy! - for the gods' sake, a founder member of both the EEC and the Eurozone!). France's FN hasn't gone anywhere, they'll be back. And negotiations on the next EU budget, which will be about 6% short because of Britain's withdrawal, are still at an early stage - things are going to get a lot more fraught between now and 2020.
For the record, I thought the referendum was a stupid thing to do, and I was blown sideways by the result. I was, and am, appalled by it. But in retrospect, I think it's far from the worst thing that could have happened. Right now I think it's odds on that the EU is doomed within a generation, thanks to the ill-conceived political compromises that were used to build it - and the even-more-ill-conceived idea of simultaneously trying to expand and deepen it, while still keeping "democratic accountability" firmly at the national level - and the UK may well do better in the end by getting out now before the whole thing collapses.
I routinely reboot my router several times a week
It's by far the easiest way to get the kids off YouTube.
Re: " hundreds of Facebook ads targeting specific demographics within the district"
Worse than that, it's about telling each group a different story. Good luck trying to track fulfilment of promises, when no one person can even know what they were.
I've never understood how Facebook is anything but a publisher.
Publishing is the process of taking "content" generated by whoever, and distributing it to as many as possible of those people who are sufficiently interested in it. That's precisely what Facebook does, it's the ONLY thing it does.
I think the police will say, quite sincerely, that their only thought is for public safety and they have no intention of keeping files on innocent, law-abiding protesters.
I also think that no amount of innocent intentions will, in fact, prevent said files from being kept anyway. It's just too easy to come up with reasons to hold on to data, once gathered.
Re: So they won't be using a
The "98% false positive rate" is a red herring, unless we also know what the false negative rate was (which we don't, and neither do the cops).
If you surveille a million people, your system flags 50 of them, then on closer inspection 49 of them weren't who you thought - that's a 98% false positive rate, but it's still a hell of a lot better than trying to check a million faces manually (which would be a 99.9999% false positive rate).
Without knowing how many "persons of interest" were in the initial sample - which, pretty much by definition, they can't know - we still don't know yet how good the tool is.
Re: South China Sea? What?
I suspect, to take part in the RIMPAC exercises together with a whole bunch of Pacific countries, including the US but also Canada, Australia, NZ, Brunei, Chile, India...
Not that the UK has any very convincing strategic interests in the area itself, but with Brexit coming up this is no time to distance itself from old allies.
Interestingly, France, Germany and even Denmark also participated in the most recent exercises, in 2016.
What worries me more is why an article ostensibly about a vessel sailing to the Far East keeps referring to the Gulf. Is the author just not very good at geography, or what?
Re: Why don't they...
Now here's a public health research project in waiting: climate derangement syndrome. The compulsion to drag every public debate back to an argument that was intellectually bankrupt 20 years ago, as if it's still a live issue.
Re: AI in government?
Then add a requirement in the spec, that the system must be able to explain every decision in human-readable form. Sounds like a good idea in its own right, to me.
Re: Just wondered...
Yes, the govt does care about reports like this. Think it through. It's only a matter of time before some huge scandal breaks over public sector data, and when that happens the parties will take turns to explain how they followed these rules more faithfully than the other lot.
Cynicism is fine, but don't let it lull you into simple mindedness.
Let's not overreact. All that happened here is that a judge found that the president did something wrong. Doesn't that happen, multiple times, to every president?
All that needs to happen is that he goes from "blocking" to "ignoring" them and promises not to do it again. And if he doesn't want to do that, he can appeal the judgment (allowing him to pose as a martyr to the Deep State for a bit longer, because ye gods this is a trivial matter), and failing appeal, ignore it completely, because seriously - can you see anyone voting for impeachment over this issue?
Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed
Re: If it were videogames...
What saddens me is that Fox News hosts apparently think it's appropriate to take their moms to McDonald's for a mother's day dinner.
Perhaps if Fox paid a bit better, they might be able to attract some people with a working brain to the job.
Re: Next act will be titled: "To infinity - and beyond!"
@John Fen: big picture. You're not thinking big enough.
In about two more iterations the Constitution itself will be in copyright, and then good luck trying to quote it against Congress.
Re: I can't believe y'all are still falling for this
No, don't look at what Trump does, look at what his administration does while everyone's busy getting upset about his tweets.
"Getting upset". Exactly. That's what the tweets are for.
Politicians have always known that journalists are lazy, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level. Conventional politicians just cultivate a few tame journalists and feed them stories, thus allowing the journalist to look informed and insightful without doing any real work.
But Trump - Trump uses Twitter to distract the entire press corps at once. "Following Twitter" is about as cheap and lazy as journalism gets, which means he can rely on just about every media organisation in the world doing it. As long as he continues to generate "things that look like news" in this way - things that can pass for news to enough people that they don't look out of place on the news pages - they will all run it.
Think about what that means. First, the press spend their time talking about what Trump wants them to talk about - which means they have no time left for talking about things he doesn't want them to talk about. The press waste their time picking holes in his positions and logic, which bolsters Trump's narrative of the press all being against him - and is completely meaningless, because he has no intention of following up on any of this crap anyway. And the public's attention is saturated, so we don't notice what his administration is actually doing while he's spraying all this bullshit at us.
Dear journalists: just stop following the tweets. Block him on Twitter. Filter from your newsfeed any story containing the words "Trump" and "Twitter". They have negative information content. Every time you read one, you become slightly stupider, and you're taking the rest of the world down with you.
I can't believe y'all are still falling for this
It's a year and a half into Trump's term, and you're still following his tweets.
Fire and motion. The tweets are a distraction, in the most literal sense possible. They mean nothing. Less than nothing. Paying attention to them is like staring hard into the conjurer's eyes, thinking he's going to give away his tricks.
Every time you run a story about Trump's tweets, you play his game. This is how he won the election: by saying so much outrageous crap that the media never actually got around to doing any hard work on him, like showing the American public what kind of businessman/politician/leader he really is.
Look at what he does, not what he says. Twitter is not policy.
Re: The worst exemption ever
Because the law is written by politicians, duh.
Exemptions in laws are bad. Period. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If the police can justify battering down your door because $REASONS, then an ordinary citizen should be able to cite the same reasons to justify it. If journalists are allowed to take pictures and record conversations, then so are we all. If censors are allowed to watch porn and snuff movies, then so should we all be.
Any time you see a named group that's allowed to do something that's forbidden to everyone else, another little bit of our freedom has died. Sometimes quite a big bit.