Posts by Robert Helpmann?? 2583 publicly visible posts • joined 31 May 2011
Not as bad as Facebook... Talk about damning by faint praise. I don't understand why anyone thought using a browser extension was a bright idea anyway. Yes, it might run in the background... making your computer slow while you are trying to use it and incurring needless overhead in that the browser needed to be running if it was going to work while the system was not otherwise in use.
Or am I missing something?
I would guess that you are conflating the age of the universe and the time it took to get to us or the age of the star due to the way the statement was phrased. If it makes you feel better, you should note that the headline does exactly the same sort of thing in equating the time that it took the light to get to us with distance as the light did not travel in a straight line (gravitational lensing) and the universe is expanding, both of which play in the measurement of distance, especially at the scales involved.
From the article: "it’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how [the victim] came from the shadows right into the roadway."
One of the selling points of autonomous vehicles is that they are not limited by human senses. They can see under vehicles and around corners and they can certainly detect that someone was lurking in the shadows even if it was between two parked cars on the side of the road. If I as a driver notice someone or something lurking there, I pay attention, slow down or otherwise take precautions for just this eventuality.
Two implications of the above quote are that police are simply unfamiliar with the capabilities of self-driving vehicles or that they are and those abilities are being overstated.
Everything in the article points to the use of tools and methods that are, at least on the face of it, already established and legitimate. There should be no controversy in requiring a warrant to gain this information and it should be considered worth noting that the information was brought to the attention of the public through legal means rather than extralegal. I certainly have no illusions that these methods cannot or will not be misused, but that in and of itself does not mean that it is wrong that they exist, just that they should used appropriately and that the public should have a right to be informed about their use and hold the ultimate power over it.
Here's the rub: the public that should be paying attention, caring about how this plays out, and has the most to lose through its abuse is the same public that is willing to give away all their rights for a few shiny baubles granted by Facebook, Google, et al. This is a problem of human nature and behavior, not of tools, laws or rights. It does not inspire confidence.
Also, this:
The first crime was the murder... the second an arson attack... the third, sexual battery... suggesting that the police force is using the approach to discover potentially incriminating evidence for increasingly less serious crimes.
Sorry, what?! Besides the awkward phrasing of ever increasing lessening (Updecreasingness? Superungrowing? How about "decreasingly"? ), all three of these crimes are all very serious. Nothing in the statement suggested that the police were in fact abusing their powers in these cases to go after significantly lesser crimes, only that the very real potential was there. That's the difference between "is" and "could". I tend not to criticize the articles themselves here on El Reg, but this was a lapse in logic and rigor of reporting that I am highlighting as a curmudgeonly service. Please feel free to down-vote. It is better than kicking a puppy though both activities may be monitored by the State.
Let me spell it out by addressing Strafach's comments.
"They can easily clear things up by explaining more precisely why they collect certain data..."
- Because they are douchebags.
"...and what they do with it..."
- Whatever douchebags do with your data.
"...so I don’t understand why they are so vague about it..."
- Because douchebaggery!
"I do hope they are being respectful of user privacy..."
- You can hope in one hand, sir...
"... and it would be very nice if they clarified that I think."
- But they make more money being complete and total douchebags.
There is only one answer when the product does something other than what the author tells you it will by design. If you are being lied to, either through weasel words in a contract, through misdirection or omission as to how something works, or any other way for that matter, then you are dealing with a douchebag. Take appropriate and immediate action (see icon if this is not clear enough to work with).
Here's where it gets interesting to me. I was hired on almost three years ago to help during a surge action geared to get Coast Guard up to speed. The then-most-recent audit had revealed a lot of similar crap and CG was worst of the Agency in overall score. I had a great time getting my portion of things up to current levels. Basically, I was told to ask permission and then do it within a given time regardless. I got to work on a few side projects that saved a lot of money. It was a wonderful experience. When I left, pretty much everything was up to then-acceptable levels.
Two years later, they are back in the same hole. Security is a moving target. It requires constant and ongoing work. This is the biggest challenge: keeping everything up to date. There is not and never will be a static state to achieve in this area.
There are many challenges specific to different agencies. In the case of the USCG, one of them is that many of their systems are at sea at a given time. This is not an excuse, however, for not maintaining a strong security stance. That is on leadership and those holding the purse strings. I have seen this exact cycle play out over and over again, which is a shame. It is very simple at least in big strokes to describe the antidote: always be prepared. Don't slack off once compliance has been achieved. Keep everything patched and up to date. How ironic that the USCG motto is "Semper Paratus" given their lack of readiness.
Czrly, what you bring up is really at the heart of what I think the ethics of this are. Not the bit about working on open source because it can be abused - that kind of thinking leads to stagnation as anything can be re-purposed to accomplish goals other than what was originally intended. The real ethical issues as I see them are 1) when is it ethical to develop new weapons and 2) when is it ethical to use them?
The article brings up the idea that ethics are tied to risk analysis and that not enough has been done, but that is just a matter of spending the time and doing the analysis and perhaps implementing and proving failsafes. Once we are past that, we are still stuck with the above to questions.
My feeling is that AI used by a nation for political or military (what difference, really?) goal should be governed by the same rules as any other use or threat of force, but that is just my simple opinion. The first question as to when it is ethical to create a new weapon is much more complex and I don't know where to begin on it.
...all the civilian contractors and support don't (at least the ones that can't hide the extra billable hours)
This is simply not the case. If the contract calls for you to be there, you will report to work and get paid for it. Remember that contractors get paid by the company they work for which in turn is paid by the government in advance. As long as there are funds in the coffers, then pay will go out. The exceptions are in situations where physical access or direct government supervision is required to perform the job when those things are not available and when a shutdown goes on long enough that the company no longer can pay the employees.
For most IT work during this recent shutdown, contractors worked remotely and did not need direct supervision to function, so life went on relatively normally.
Casinos don't need to do maths, the odds are already in their favour.
And how do you suppose that happy circumstance was arrived at? By thoroughly understanding probability. How do they set up new games and expect to bring in the money? Same answer. Why do they prevent collusion between players? Now we're on to game theory. So yes, they do in fact need to understand maths or risk going out of business.
Mine has a copy of Radner on Dice in the pocket.
This kind of issue is the biggest flaw in android...
The flaw is not with Android, but with the service providers. If a patch has been created by Google and the phone companies will not push it out, it is not a flaw with the OS but with the service model that it is implemented under. Small pleasure in knowing this if you are affected, but pressure should be placed on those responsible for the lack of updates, not on those who actually created them and made them available.
The entire publication would be lifted into the next league—where arguably it belongs—if it would simply stop the clumsy, infantile puns...
I read the stories precisely because of the puns. DO NOT CHANGE!
There. In much the same way reporting should be fair and balanced, so too should comments.
More or less, Jay. I live in the burbs about 25 miles out of the city. I moved to this area from another US state where there was less in the way of rail or bus service. There, I carpooled and used light rail as much as I could, but it was limited. I will probably move farther out from the metro center as the rail line is expanding beyond its current 60+ mile range. I appreciate the advantages of country life, but am more than happy to enjoy those of the city, too. I have no complaints about being able to have it both ways.
While I think self-driving cars are the way to go if I am forced to be on the roadways, I prefer to partake as little as possible. I know it is not always possible to avoid getting in a car to go somewhere, but I have managed to replace more than 90% of time spent behind the wheel from my life with rail transport and walking. It looks as though I will be able to pare that down even more.
Cars are more and more a lifestyle choice and not a necessity. Doesn't that imply that those who use them most are, at least to a certain extent, choosing to risk life and limb simply by doing so? Will insurers start asking if you drive and inquiring about self-driving tech if you do in much the same way they currently do concerning smoking, drinking and drug use?
...There is no in between or half way house because then someone has to determine who is good and who is bad...
There are a number of simple logical fallacies in your arguments. First, saying both groups have broken a law makes them equivalent is simply wrong. Under such logic, jaywalking and mass murder have the same standing. This is neither the way the law actually works nor the way society as a whole views things. However this is exactly the position put forth in many political "discussions". Points off for False Equivalence.
Framing rights in absolute terms is likewise incorrect. Under legal frameworks of which I am aware, there are limits to rights. This is particularly evident in which the exercise of rights by different groups brings them into conflict.
Likewise, it is possible to frame laws in such a way as to be applied to everyone in the same manner and yet discriminate against a class. This may be done for the benefit of society (preventing access to weapons on the part of known violent offenders) or to its detriment (implementing a poll tax in order to vote). While you touch on this concept, your statements fall down on the implications.
90-95% of the code is probably stolen from some online site.
While this is undoubtedly true, it is far past the point where incompetence can explain away all the security flaws out in the wild. I have come to believe that there are a number of bad actors teaching people to code who feel that including basic security is to be avoided under all circumstances.
Appropriately enough, I had one of those conversations today. Worked out well, thanks very much. The programmers got an immediate band-aid and an acceptable long term solution.
What I see in proposals like this is a simple alternative to the way things are normally done getting enough attention to have a temporary effect. It isn't inherently better or worse than other methods, but the initial enthusiasm for the change can have things get better (or worse, if there is none) for a while. Enthusiasm eventually peters out. What gets you through is good, robust methods, training, documentation and... well all the boring bits of doing work in a technical field.
Vaping isn't that bad when you compare it to smoking.
That really is damning by faint praise. A bit like "Not as bad a poke in the eye with a sharp stick". Vaping is a drug delivery system. It is commonly used for nicotine today, but can also be used for other inhaled drugs, both legal and otherwise. Big Tobacco has an issue with vaping as they have a vested interest in the status quo and even if they can have a large slice of the pie, they may not necessarily get it. Entrenched monopolists don't like change.
From "The Duel" in Robots and Empire, the 0th Law:
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm, unless this interferes with the zeroth law.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by a human being unless such orders interfere with the zeroth or first laws.
3. A robot must defend its own existence unless such defense interferes with the zeroth, first or second laws.
Setting up emergent behavior which leads inevitably to robots as our benevolent overlords.
> you don't look directly at the sun for more than a glance no matter how much is obscured by the moon
But when it is completely obscured at Totality then it _is_ safe to look and you really, really should.
The rub is in knowing when to look. Even glancing at the sun without protection adds up. Bad timing will result in a crescent shaped burn on your retina rather than the full circle you would get looking at our star on a normal day. Safest ways are to use eclipse glasses or indirect methods of viewing. Don't wake up blind the day after!
...if you can create arbitrary files, you can have all sorts of fun with a Linux environment (even if only in the current user's context).
The first and most obvious thing to do with this is try to gain root and have some real fun.
Arbitrary files equals arbitrary commands leads to eventual pwnage.
Don't know why salmon is an exception.
Salmon used in sushi are from Norway. Salmon from the Pacific are considered to be undesirable for sashimi due to parasites and low fat content. Here is an article that tells the tale:
http://www.norwayexports.no/sectors/articles/norways-introduction-of-salmon-sushi-to-japan/
There isn't an easy way around this problem. Shitty management courses aren't the answer but good management programmes (there really are some and they require time and investment) might be the least worst treatment, at least improving some people's skills.
Management is a skill. It take time, effort and energy to learn and grow, just like any other skill. It also requires a good knowledge of the people and projects being managed, so pulling someone up from the ranks makes sense to a certain extent, but is not enough on its own. One of my greatest peeves are managers who claim that they can manage anything simply because they are great managers.
I've worked both tech and management (in IT security, as it happens) and have spent time in effort learning both skill sets. What I typically I see in promoting top talent is a general lack of experience on the part of upper management. The idea isn't new; the term Peter Principle has been around since 1969.
What am I missing?
The devil is in the details and we only have an executive summary. It looks like an interesting tool, but I would want to know how much training and time it would take to implement, how it will scale, how well it can be tuned (to your comment concerning error rates, really_adf), what kind of overhead it will impose on equipment and how much maintenance is required once it is put in place. This certainly does not sound like a fire and forget sort of application. Also, since it is a very young tech, I would expect there to be the sorts of issues that any new software brings.
...foreign governments might have to ban Microsoft/Google/Intel/etc
They did it first!
I am not really sure which they "They" is, but this is just the latest in a long chain of bans. Mostly, we hear about China, Russia and the US banning each other's tech. There have to be other examples that don't get the same amount of coverage. Perhaps India has banned Pakistani AV products. Maybe the Canadian government is harshing on Sri Lankan firewall imports. Any other real world examples?
I'm not so fine with... [e]xpanding NATO to include the Ukraine
Not sure how this fits in with your other points, MH. They seem to be related a little more closely than this one. I'm not attacking your opinion on this, even if I do not necessarily agree, it's that it doesn't track from the rest of what you've stated. Care to tie it together?
We live in a bizarre world where everyone makes their documentation in railway carriage form and is surprised when it doesnt fit into the matter transporter.
I know the article and above comments mostly refer to IT documentation, but digitization projects that have involved scanning historical texts and making them available online have brought rare texts in reach of many people who would not otherwise have access. There are a number of transcription efforts that are crowd-sourced, allowing said texts to become easily searched. As otherwise noted, it depends on what your particular needs are, but for many if not most in this area digital texts have far outstripped the utility of the physical page.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
