Re: Look and say AAAHHH!
@Gambler
And what happens when our governments legislate to band encryption on phones, or indeed anything?
Posts by dan1980
2933 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Aug 2013
Page:
FBI boss: We don't want a backdoor, we want the front door to phones
Friday 17th October 2014 02:04 GMT
Re: What exactly is the front-door of a phone anyway?
@2+2=5
I think the idea is that, just as 'hacking' the phones would be considered the 'back door', legitimate access (whatever that amounts to) is the 'front door'.
If we can keep the snickering to a minimum, one goes in the back door to escape notice. The analogy more-or-less work because once you find you've been broken into, you tend to make sure everything is locked-up tight
Friday 17th October 2014 01:55 GMT
The response is so obvious and many have said it before - if you and all your buddies* had kept to the fucking rules and respected everyone's privacy in the first place, you wouldn't have this problem.
* - As per a previous post, I suspect the FBI are less problematic that some others - like the NSA but there is NO doubt whatsoever that they have accessed data they shouldn't have without correct due process, either directly, through a request to another agency or through information being passed to them.
There is always talk about 'inter-agency cooperation' and 'information sharing' as if this is a good thing. I contend that it is not. You see, the NSA were given a certain set of powers based on the type of threat they are supposedly combating. The FBI are given another set of powers based on their job and the DEA are given their own set. The idea that the NSA can gather information under the remit of their purpose and then pass that on to agencies who would not be able to access it themselves should be (and evidently is) outrageous to people
On Nov 12, a human-made space lab will try to HARPOON a COMET and land on it
Thursday 16th October 2014 22:49 GMT
@Ivan 4
But that's the amazing part!!!
I.e. that this all works so well. For most people, life just goes on and we don't have to care a fig for the natural laws and the equations that some very, very clever people deduced to explain them. We get up, get dressed, eat breakfast, have a coffee or tea and get on with our jobs and the natural laws just potter along in the background, ensuring that our coffee mugs stay on the table, our cars work and our computers turn on.
It's not until you digest something like this and the orbital mechanics used that it all comes into sharp relief. Yes, it's common-place for this particular field and gravity assists were used for all the major probes but that doesn't make it any less amazing for a lay-person like myself.
It's in these moments that we all get to see - if we care to look - just how sturdy this all is and how well it works.
I mean, every day of our lives (for almost everyone in developed nations) is accompanied by the practical effects of quantum physics in the form of the transistor but we give no through to it and get on with yelling at our computers when they crash.
This kind of thing is why I spoke about creationists discarding science as just based off assumptions and believe and dogma. The difference of course is that when our scientific knowledge is applied to real, physical applications, it bloody well works, and works bloody well!
Thursday 16th October 2014 03:23 GMT
Oh what the fuck. Seriously, this random down-voting without any explanation is really starting to irk me. People who down-vote without any reason are just cowardly children taking potshots from the sidelines. If you don't agree with what someone has said then have the courage to put your reasoning forward for everyone to judge and stand by it.
So, random coward, what is it in my post that so upset you? Did you find the word 'bitches' too confronting? Are you a tut-tutting tee-totaller who disapproves of even an image of alcohol? Or did my comment about creationists rub you the wrong way?
If so, why? Are you a creationist who supports the position I am voicing annoyance at - that 'science' is based on dogma and belief? If so then say so plainly - and not from behind the cover of an anonymous coward shield.
Or perhaps I have it wrong and you just wanted to make it known that you didn't think this was crazy-cool but merely 'cool'.
Thursday 16th October 2014 02:58 GMT
Re: That's awfully bumpy terrain
@VeganVegan
From the NASA FAQ:
What if the lander touches down on a very steep slope and drills itself into an awkward angle, or sinks into porous snow or some other soft material?
The lander is designed so that it can land on a slope of up to 30 degrees. The feet are equipped with large pads to allow the lander to touch down on a soft surface. If the surface is very soft, the lander’s feet may sink into it but sinking will eventually be stopped by the bulkiness of the lander’s body. In all scenarios, the lander is expected to be able to safely transmit its data.
--EDIT--
Re-reading your question, I realise that doesn't actually answer it!
Thursday 16th October 2014 02:24 GMT 
This whole thing is just so freaking amazing.
The most amazing part, of course, is the ridiculous amount of planning and just how well the laws (and approximations, in the case of Newton) work.
Things like this are why I get so hot under the collar any time a creationist labels science as dogmatic and based on belief just as much as their own, religious world view. It works. It just WORKS. (Bitches.)
I mean, planning a 10 year journey involving THREE gravity assist manoeuvres from the Earth and one from Mars, coordinating two other comet fly-bys, rendezvousing with an object travelling 135,000 km/h and then inserting itself into an orbit with with a body that has an escape velocity of about 1 m/s. That's just crazy-cool.
Yes, there were corrections needed but this step was also pre-planned, hence waking up from hibernation when it did, allowing the scientists and engineers to re-assess the situation and adjust. Even then, the ability to accurately ascertain the position of the vehicle and comet and calculate the precise burn directions and timings is testament to just how well this all works.
There's no real point here, just if I go home and wax lyrical about this all to my partner, I am met with just the barest approximation of indulgence.
Obvious choice of icon.
Arab States make play for greater government control of the internet
Martha Lane Fox: Yeuch! The Internet is made by men?!?
Thursday 16th October 2014 01:02 GMT
Every time I hear/read someone promoting electronic voting systems, I have to set my jaw, close my eyes and take a slow, deep breath.
Electronic voting is a solution to a non-existent problem - that of voters casting more than one vote, voting in a different electorate, voting for a friend, etc...
Oh, it happens alright, but nothing has ever shown that it is cause for even the most casual concern.
It is easy to show that electronic voting has caused more questionable results than it has prevented.
Take CTRL! Shallow minds ponder the DEEP spectre of DARK CACHE
Monday 13th October 2014 01:18 GMT
Re: CTRL-C
@Alistair Dabbs
Perhaps the opening question would be:
"Who uses the command prompt regularly?"
One thing to consider, however, is that the command prompt came from a time when mouse-control was not really there - you just wouldn't be highlighting stuff to copy in the first place! You also wouldn't be multi-tasking the same way so you wouldn't be pasting in commands from the Internet or a document you have open on another screen!
As it is now, you need to use your mouse to select the text anyway. Sure, it would be easier to do CTRL+C and CTRL+V but I, if I had to choose between having copy/paste shortcuts or a break shortcut (with the other being relegated to a context menu) then I would choose CTRL+C for break.
Of course, one could just have it as a different combination, but that's outside of what's being discussed.
Monday 13th October 2014 00:23 GMT
Re: De Bios, she is incompatible..
@John McCallum
"I think all of them when English is a second or third language."
Really? It has been my experience that non-native speakers are far more likely to replace 'it' with 'he', rather than 'she'.
Even the very well-spoken ones. Hell, one of my foreign-born relatives uses 'he' when talking about women sometimes too!
Apple hit by INSIDER LEAK: New iPad Mini 3, iPad Air 2 blabbed
Thursday 16th October 2014 00:25 GMT
With the admission that I don't really follow (or even care much about) such things, has the release or leak of a new version of an iThing ever provided anything that numerous blog sites haven't guessed at already?
There's no problem - they're onto a great formula and are doing what I wish many other companies would do - releasing updated versions of something that already works (ain't broke, etc...) - I just don't get why people are so eager for these leeks.
New editions are faster, slightly different shape/size, have higher resolution screens and cameras and have now implemented some features that already exist elsewhere in the market place. Scoop!
Want a customer's call records Mr Plod? No probs
Wednesday 15th October 2014 23:29 GMT
Re: dan1980 dan1980
@Matt Bryant
Because the way someone feels is irrelevant to their way of life, right?
By that logic, verbal and psychological bullying and abuse cannot be considered a legitimate cause for grievance
Despite you posts, I simply cannot accept that you believe what you are professing to believe because if so then you are, quite simply, a person whom the rest of the world would be well served by avoiding utterly.
Anyone who believes that the mental and emotional states of the people around them are not 'real and actual' and are not really worth considering; who believes that only physical effects are of any concern, would care nothing for upsetting and hurting the people around him because he wouldn't believe that they even were hurt.
I don't believe that about anyone here.
To address the 'paranoia' statement directly, you do realise that this mass surveillance is actually happening, don't you? It's not paranoid to say the our governments are collecting, storing and analysing details and records of everything we do online, every phone call we make and countless other bits of information because that really is what they are doing.
Tuesday 14th October 2014 02:12 GMT
Re: dan1980
@Matt
To draw a parallel, think of someone who is subject to a 'peeping tom'. This miscreant has in no way hurt or changed the person being spied on but and so, by the kind of definition you appear to be using, this is no cause for concern or upset. It doesn't change our victim's 'way of life'.
After all, nothing is preventing that person get undressed in a change room at a public swimming pool.
The imposition on 'way of life' here is that people very much feel violated when their privacy is intruded upon in such fashion and are are wary about it happening again - a woman who has been spied on in a public change room might thereafter always make sure that she only gets changed using that awkward holding the towel up manoeuvre. Or perhaps she puts on her swimming costume underneath her clothes at home before she leaves and then drives home wrapped in a towel so she can change back in to normal clothes at home.
This is the most basic way in which our 'way of life' is being affected by these spying regimes. We now have to go to - sometimes great - lengths to ensure that those things we feel private and personal are hidden from prying eyes.
The thing is that the vast majority of people want and expect privacy in their day-to-day lives and we want some control over who we let into our lives.
Once that expectation is shattered - such as it has been and continually is being - people will do one of two things. Either they will accept it, in which case they have lost something (privacy) that they had before and simply resolve themselves the the new reality.
OR, they maintain that desire for privacy and take steps to maintain that privacy as best they can, which usually involves a combination of changing not only what you do but how you do it.
This is, in every sense that matters, affecting their 'way of life'.
That is doesn't bother you, personally is utterly irrelevant.
Tuesday 14th October 2014 01:16 GMT
Re: dan1980
@Matt
"Way of life" means the way you live your life. It is not just confined to, say, living in a modern, technologically-advanced society with stocked supermarkets, clean water and good living conditions. That's important, but it's much, much more than that.
It's the freedoms you have and the mental and emotional state that you have as well as the worries and concerns that afflict you.
While you may be different, it cause me real and genuine mental anguish when I think of how much of my life is laid bare to our governments and their spy agencies and, for that matter, many government organisations that ask for (and receive) access to that data.
While it may cause no specific, physical issues or problems, knowing that my privacy is not valued by the people with the power to deprive me of it makes me, for want of a better term, unhappy. It causes me stress and anxiety and prompts me to conduct my life differently, with one eye always on how much data I am revealing about myself.
Even if nothing tangible comes from it, most people want to know that what they do and say and think* is reasonably private and not searchable in a big database by some government official a thousand miles away who has never met them and has no reason to suspect them of any wrong-doing or even suspicious activity.
In a way, it's the presumption of innocence - we expect to be left to live our lives in peace and privacy without being a constant and continual person of interest to our governments and police agencies.
Again, maybe none of this matters to you, and that is fine, but it would nearly unimaginably ignorant for you to assume that because you don't mind, no one else does or should either.
It's also somewhat narrow to say that there won't be any future encroachments building on these intrusions that even you would have to agree constituted a change in you 'way of life'.
AND, it's rather naive to think that the only people being affected by these regimes are 'criminals'. You definition may be so wide as to make even the smallest infraction 'criminal' but, legally, not every illegal/unlawful act is a CRIMINAL offence. My point is that if you think only CRIMINAL offences are targeted then you are poorly informed.
Even then, many things that are criminal are hardly a national security/think-of-the-children issue, which has been - almost without exception - the justification for these intrusions, including by people like you, as evidenced by your list of people who should be worried.
Take social security/benefit fraud, where someone dishonestly claims and receives benefits. In some countries this is actually a criminal offence, depending on the exact nature of the fraud. Now, it's certainly wrong and certainly a drain on the economy and no one wants their tax dollars going to lazy cheats. BUT, it is hardly the sort of thing that could possibly justify the mass collection, storage and analysis of any and all data by our governments.
Likewise copyright violations. In some areas that can be a criminal offence but not in others (again. depending on exact circumstances) but these data retention and collection and access laws are most certainly used to police this.
The point to this all is not so much that the data is collected by the government - that is a separate issue - but that this data, which was explained as necessary to 'combat terrorism' and 'keep our nation safe', is now being used for much, much less serious issues and is done so with far, far less restrictions and scrutiny that the sensitivity of that data warrants.
* - Yes, 'think'. It has been shown through the 'big data' collections and analytics that have become almost mandatory these days that if you have enough information about people you can, within an acceptable margin of error, predict what they will do. Certainly, with simply a full Internet browsing history, you can make high-probability guesses about a number of things that many people rightly consider no one else's business - political affiliation, sexual orientation and preference, hobbies, favourite foods, where they like to go on the weekend, what type of shoes they wear, what medical conditions they have - and much, much more, both mundane and important. You can profile someone with scary accuracy with enough information, and this is, in fact, what is done.
Sunday 12th October 2014 23:03 GMT
The problem, as I have stated elsewhere is a mindset shared amongst our western 'democracies' that 'protecting against terrorism' is sufficient justification for pretty much anything.
It's almost a siege mentality.
The thing is, however, we are not under siege. The world is dangerous and always will be. People will kill and people will die. There will be guns and bombs and knives and people using them to scare and murder and rob. That won't change.
What is at risk is not our safety - because we're not safe and never will be - but our way of life, and that is being traded away with the assumption that it is less important than safety.
ONE MILLION people already running Windows 10
Wednesday 15th October 2014 07:21 GMT
The feedback will change almost nothing, save fixing some bugs that are huge, easy to fix and they feel like fixing.
The kind of shit that comes out of Redmond in terms of poorly-thought-out ideas is amazing. Take Windows 7/2008 R2, where they removed the overlay for shared folders. Numerous people complained. Microsoft's response was to say that this information had been moved to the 'details' pane, explaining that:
"This approach is an improvement over the overlay model as it helps provide more relevant data related to sharing."
"Given the changes in how people use computers, sharing information is becoming more and more of the default state. When you set up a HomeGroup, pretty much everything is going to be shared. To remove the visual clutter, the information was moved to the Details pane."
In other words, here's how we think you do and should use your computer - share everything! - and so we made it the way we think it should be.
Right, so we're talking about home PCs here, so we can assume that the overlay is still there on the server editions, right? Right? No.
There are numerous examples of this and far worse.
Server 2012 gets released and people look to make use of the new RDP 8 protocol to realise the extra performance of Windows 8 + RDP 8 + 2012 RDS. A new deployment and management method and interface - takes a bit of learning but, okay, we can deal with this. THEN, you realise you can't monitor and shadow session the way you have been able to since terminal server was first released, in NT TSE!!
MS just don't listen to their customers. They have an idea of what it SHOULD be and treat any dissenting views as incorrect.
I think the adoption numbers of Windows 8 has shown that to be in error and, hopefully, they have learned. But I won't count on it.
Bono apologises for iTunes album dump
Wednesday 15th October 2014 06:03 GMT
Just a drop?
"I had this beautiful idea. We got carried away with ourselves. Artists are prone to that kind of thing. Drop of megalomania. Twitch of generosity. Dash of self promotion. And deep fear that the songs that we poured out life into over the last few years mightn't be heard. There's a lot of noise out there. I guess we we got a little noisy ourselves to get through it."
Just a drop?
What it is is either a massive dose of arrogance or an amazing disconnect between what they think people are cool with and what they actually are cool with.
Or both.
It's a free gift - why wouldn't anyone want that? After all, they can always throw it away but you're opening them up to something that you think they might like and otherwise might be ignorant of.
It seems to me the same kind of attitude of those who proselytise their religious beliefs, dropping pamphlets through mailboxes and onto windscreens or knocking on doors in pairs or handing out booklets in the street.
It's the idea that the thing they are offering is a fundamentally good thing that is relevant and valuable to people and they should be given the opportunity to see this thing because it would be unfortunate if they missed out through not knowing.
Actually, comparing U2 to religion is not that much of a stretch . . .
What's that one about the difference between God and Bono being that God doesn't walk down the street thinking he's Bono?
Radiohead(ache): BBC wants dead duck tech in sexy new mobes
Wednesday 15th October 2014 00:47 GMT
Digital radio is an excellent idea, but for the fact that it is worse in almost every way that actually matters to 99% of radio listeners.
- Quality? - Only if the stream is a sufficiently high bitrate, which very few are.
- Reception? - When it's good it can be better than FM; but there is less 'good' coverage.
- Portability? - Big no. Yes, there are plenty of DAB radios that can replace the beaten old unit in the shed with a dial that never wavers from ABC Grandstand* but as soon as you move it out to the garden on battery-power to enjoy with a beer, you end up needing to add batteries to your weekly shopping list.
- Choice? - This is a big one and it's hard to argue that digital doesn't have a wider choice. BUT, as I said, above, for 99% of radio listeners, it's irrelevant. People just don't listen to the radio to like that and there are superior options available now.
Those people, however, are generally better-served by online service, unless that's impractical.
So, there it is - digital radio is good for people who want to listen to narrow ranges of music in their own home, in capital cities (at least in Australia) or well-populated areas and don't want to use a computer or smart phone/tablet as your source.
And that is why no one really cares.
* - Insert local cricket-broadcasting equivalent.
It's 2014 and you can still own a Windows box using a Word file or font
Greedy datagrabs, crap security will KILL the Internet of Thingies
Tuesday 14th October 2014 00:01 GMT
Good article, Andrew. (I have been critical of some of your output in the past so credit where due.)
The real problem with 'IoT' is that what was once simply home automation is now accessible externally, which is worrying from both a privacy and security standpoint.
It not be necessarily possible to burn a house down but if security cameras and alarms can be controlled over the Internet, they can be disabled over the Internet.
In addition, what a way to select targets! A simple scanning tool could find out those networks with juicy, expensive electronics inside. If you can then find out someone's details from those systems - many will have registration details to connect to online services - then you can likely find where the house is. Any activity logging could go a long way to showing when people are home and presto - you have a target, a haul and a timeframe.
That and, you know, I am sure our must-protect-the-children/fight-the-terrorists governments won't at all be interested in slurping up data from these devices . . .
You only have to look at the relatively recent revelation about LG 'Smart' TVs phoning home with information about all the files stored on an USB device connected to the TV and any files played through it over the network.
Given that our governments seem to think that combating copyright violations is second only to combating 'terrorism' in their pile of ends-justify-the-means imperatives, do you really want this stuff transmitting back to homebase?
I've got a new Linux box, how does it work... WOAH, only asking :-/
Monday 13th October 2014 01:07 GMT
I just don't understand why anyone feels strongly enough about their operating system to argue about them.
I really don't.
I use Windows both at home and at work, and it is adequate for what I need but not without its share of annoyances or things that I would change, were it up to me. I use Linux both at home and at work and I find it adequate for what I need but not without its share of annoyances or things that I would change. I use Macs infrequently but I recognise that they work very well for somethings and some people but, again, they are not without their share of annoyances or things that I would change.
On people, I have seen Windows users go into bat for their OS of choice and criticise the alternatives while being dismissive of or rude to those who use them and I have seen this in equal measure from Linux and Mac users, too.
Each of these operating systems does some things better than the others and other things less well. They are each aimed slightly differently but their apostles seem to suggest that they are the best option for everyone in every circumstance and for every workload.
Rot.
10 Top Tips For PRs Considering Whether To Phone The Register
Monday 13th October 2014 00:03 GMT
Re: Even in our formal IT Office
@chivo243
Some days these calls make my life a bit happier. Mostly because, as a sysadmin, I am a bitter and warped individual who gains a perverse kind of pleasure in the anguish of other human beings.
Or maybe I am just a bad person.
Either way, some days I actually say: put them through to me.
It's not always anger - sometimes its rudeness, sometimes snarkiness, sometimes brusqueness. Sometimes I simply enjoy wasting their time but my favourite is being able to call their bluff.
In a way, marketing calls can be very much like people asking you to sign up for gym memberships or charities on the street. First, I'm not going to make any decision like that on the spot simply because you're being friendly. But, whatever the case, you get exactly one polite answer. If you force me to give you a second answer, it will be of the other variety.
If you're a marketing person making cold calls* then it's okay - we each have our jobs to do and I won't hold yours against you. But accept 'no' for an answer and understand when the person you are speaking to is not interested. If you don't then that is rude and disrespectful. It's your choice but you can hardly complain when you get the same back.
* - And another thing - don't kid yourself; some random call or e-mail some time in the past does not warm up a cold call.
Let down by a lousy UberX driver? They probably skipped the 'optional $65 customer service training course'
Friday 10th October 2014 07:04 GMT
Re: No thanks
@Lars
Can you actually even legally waive those rights in those countries?
In Australia, we have - thankfully - quite strong consumer protection laws that include provision of services and provide rights that cannot be waived or disclaimed, regardless of what you read or agree (explicitly or implicitly) to or sign.
'Bill Gates swallowing bike on a beach' is ideal password say boffins
Thursday 9th October 2014 22:33 GMT
Re: change your passwords regularly
@John Brown (no body)
"Users will always find the easy way, even if that decreases security."
This ABSOLUTELY should be a key factor in designing a password policy, The key is to make it strict enough enough that people aren't using 'password' but not so strict and unmanageable that people find a way around it.
The problem is that it's next to impossible to prevent people gaming the system by using a password that fulfills the requirements but is not very secure at all - Password123 for example, and it's just as hard to prevent people from writing them down.
The best thing, I have found, is to have a password policy that enforces basic good sense, 8+ chars, complexity (not really necessary) and 90 day expiry (to taste). Then you have to EDUCATE the users on how to choose strong passwords and why these are necessary - especially where remote access (like webmail) is concerned.
In some workplaces there is a lot of bickering and stealing credit and you need to tell people plainly that if they choose a weak password, one of their colleagues could just log onto their e-mail and steal their sales leads or whatever.
The trick is to get the users to be part of the process - to understand why it's necessary.
Thursday 9th October 2014 06:32 GMT
Okay, remembering a password is one problem and one can develop and propose methods of selecting and remembering password. Great.
But typing the f%$king things is another matter altogether.
As a systems administrator, I type complex passwords many times a day to the point of muscle memory but I STILL mistype them 2 times out of 5.
Australia mandates* cloud use by government agencies
Thursday 9th October 2014 01:55 GMT
Re: Thank goodness we've got the cloud sorted out here in the UK
@D Moss Esq
I enjoyed that post immensely.
The big problem with 'cloud', is not the cloud, per se, but the expectation that some people have, which is in no way helped by cloud vendors.
Cloud, it seems, is too often seen as a way to make everything better - you save money and hassles and once you move your stuff there, life is easy and you don't have to worry anymore. Wrong. 'Cloud' is not removing the need for infrastructure, just moving the infrastructure from one location, that you can control, to another, that you can't.
Some concerns are removed, some new ones are added but most still remain, albeit slightly changed.
In some ways, I see cloud IT services like a VoIP system. I know many companies that have implemented VoIP because they wanted to reduce their call costs. This is fine, but they had been sold on massive savings and just jumped, without doing any real trials or considering what the implications might be. They never took stock of what their existing system offered or what their requirements were.
What happened, of course, was that the VoIP system just did not meet their needs for stability, call quality, functionality and availability. They had also chosen rather cheap phones because that's what they had been quoted and they liked the price, having been shown that the handsets would pay for themselves inside a few months (they were renting their old ones).
Cloud marketing and sales pitches can be like that - overly ambitious ROI tied to unreasonably low TCO numbers. In truth, while the numbers are correct, they don't take into account all that has been lost in the rush to the 'cloud' and that will, eventually, need to be replaced.
Wednesday 8th October 2014 23:53 GMT
@John
The medium makes it hard to untangle your post because I can't see if your tongue was in your cheek while writing this.
Please tell me it's not a revelation that our government* doesn't really know what it's doing and just hits some catch-phrases and important-sounding jargon . . .
* - Before the Coalition supporters (I'm looking at you Fluffy Bunny) get their heckles up, I mean government in general, without reference to which team of clueless, self-interested spivs are in.
Hey, non-US websites – FBI don't have to show you any stinkin' warrant
Thursday 9th October 2014 00:02 GMT
@MyBackDoor
No, I think that's pretty much what they are implying.
I believe the idea is similar to a police report saying that a wanted criminal was last seen driving a red, late model Ford Falcon sedan (insert local equivalent) and then matching that with a suspect driving the same car.
Except, in this case, the report is more akin to saying that the suspect was seen driving 'a van'.
In other words, flimsier than anything any normal person would dare claim.
AT&T to fork out less than two days' profit in bogus bill charge flap
Thursday 9th October 2014 00:11 GMT
The phrase that really needs to be dusted off in these cases is "punitive damages".
Fines that amount to simply replaying what has been deceitfully taken are just not enough as they are no deterrent at all.
Any time these companies are found out and made to pay up, they come out more-or-less even but when they get away with it, they win. This happens in other areas too, like banks and their various charges and penalties and insurance companies not paying out or paying out fractions of what they should.
Simply paying/repaying what they should is not a penalty and thus not a deterrent.
It's like saying that if someones is found guilty of stealing a car, their 'punishment' is to return the car or pay for it. That's ridiculous, clearly!
Now, what AT&T have done is not criminal so you can't go sending them to jail, but you still need to punish them so that the punishment acts as a deterrent to others and this is precisely where punitive damages come in.
The very purpose of such damages is to fine the company sufficiently so that it cannot be seen as a cost of doing business and thus actually acts as a deterrent.
Adobe spies on reading habits over unencrypted web because your 'privacy is important'
Wednesday 8th October 2014 12:49 GMT
Re: Adobe, it's not me, it's you
Unfortunately there are still sites out there with Flash and some of these are essential to the daily functioning of some people. While it's all very macho to just ban Flash, in many instances it's just not that simple.
There are several government web sites I know of that some of my clients need day-to-day that rely on Flash. They literally couldn't do their jobs without them and thus without Flash. In some instances you can sandbox some VMs for this and mitigate the security risks but not always as it depends on budget.
Sometimes you've just got to explain the risks, take some backups and trust to fate.
Aussie builds contactless card cloner app, shops at Woolies with fake card
Wednesday 8th October 2014 12:58 GMT
@Adam 1
More annoyingly, however, they are prone to not working, cost more than most people were paying for their monthly or multi ticket, are a pain to recharge anonymously and track you if you link it to your credit card.
They are also thicker in the wallet, take longer to register at the gate and - at my station - one of the readers seems to be broken every other week.
I imagine they are vulnerable to this attack as well so you can add that to the list.
Re-light my diode: Trio of boffins scoop physics Nobel for BLUE LEDs
Wednesday 8th October 2014 12:35 GMT
Re: Curious
@Allan George Dyer
My mistake, already corrected (before I saw your comment). For those wondering what Allan is talking about, I accidentally wrote that blue LEDs paved the way for yellow LEDs, which is clearly ridiculous.
What they did was pave the way for white LEDs, and this was done, more-or-less, through a yellow coating, which works to not only produce white but, as the eye is more sensitive to yellow than blue, increase the apparent brightness.
Wednesday 8th October 2014 10:02 GMT
Re: Curious
@AC
Even if it was the combination of endless substances at random, so what? What of Penzias and Wilson, who won the same medal for, essentially, stumbling on the microwave background radiation. They weren't the first to do so but simply had the good fortune of noticing it at a time when a group of physicists had proposed it and were beginning to search for it.
Had Peebles, Dicke and Wilkinson not been doing their research at the same time. then Penzias and Wilson likely would have simply got on with their own research like others before them. The only real difference was that when they went looking for an answer, there was one ready*.
At any rate, the development of the blue LED wasn't just random combination, though there were lots of experiments, obviously. I believe this prize is thoroughly deserved. If you're not aware, blue LEDs were an essential stepping-stone to white LEDs, which are essentially filtered blue LEDs.
* - Not to say that they weren't thorough because they were, but given they had their own jobs and research, it's very unlikely they would have developed the same answer independently - especially as they were (I believe) proponents of the Steady State theory.
Wednesday 8th October 2014 09:40 GMT
I must admit that I didn't realise just how big a deal this was until I stumbled across some information on it a few years ago. Once I read through the story and how involved it was and what has been enabled since I simply assumed they already had a Nobel prize!
Congratulations to these folks - now that I know the story it is a great achievement and one that has really enabled a lot of technology to advance to a state that we now take pretty much for granted.
Where's the sake icon? (Though beer has an excellent history in Japan too!)
Women! Worried you won't get that Job in IT? Mention how hot you are
Wednesday 8th October 2014 10:37 GMT
@AC
I think the good folks of The Register have selected the sillier comment - I will leave myself in their hands.
For what it is worth (not much,) it has nothing to do with 'shoulds' or 'coulds' or 'woulds'.
Any employee absolutely CAN dress as corporate as they like. I am not saying that a woman in IT shouldn't dress corporate. What I am saying is that if you are 'coal face' IT, then dressing like the other admins/techs will help you fit in.
This is true in many areas and works the other way as well. If your company has no strict dress code and all your peers are in full corporate but you are in smart casual, you will be judged on that.
It's not right to judge a book by its cover but, if you present yourself like the other people you work with/associate with then you are more likely to be accepted. If you present much more or less corporate (whichever) and you find you aren't trusted or accepted as readily then gender bias need not be the first thing one blames.
Wednesday 8th October 2014 07:20 GMT
I appreciate that it can be difficult for someone to work in a workplace that is overwhelmingly the opposite gender. As in-house IT I have done this and (in that position) I was the only person in IT in an office of around 40 people, 95% of whom were women (just one other guy).
All my workplace conversations were with people of the opposite gender and the culture and humour and team activities and venue choices were all very much female.
Believe me when I say that when you get a group that is overwhelmingly one gender or another, the culture very much becomes gender-based. It is next to impossible that it wouldn't.
There is one piece of advice I would give to any female looking to work in 'coal face' IT, which is to dress on a level with the existing staff if you want to be accepted and trusted by them. That part isn't directly about gender as it will happen to males who dress too corporate as well. If the IT staff are in jeans and polo shirts (vendor ones, often - ugh) then anyone someone coming in everyday in a full suit and tie is likely to be seen either as not a real IT person or perhaps as someone who is looking to move up into management.
The connection here is that in such situations, where business wear is not required, women will tend to dress more corporate than men. It's by no means a given and is very much a stereotype but it's there all the same.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
