Sign in / up

* Posts by dan1980

2933 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Aug 2013

Page:

Rise of the Machines: Robot challenges top German player at ping-pong

dan1980
Reply Icon

I see the point about moving to precisely the desired location but that is one of the strengths of such robotic arms - the machinery is very accurate.

Even 'cheap' 6-axis robots have repeatability measured in fractions of a millimetre. Granted, that precision is not independent of speed and acceleration so of course the faster the arm moves, the harder it is to achieve the desired precision but one might argue that an error margin of a centimetre or so would be within the acceptable range for such a purpose as table tennis. Given the base KR AGILUS model has a repeatability of 0.03mm, that 1cm is around 3000x more lax. Presumably this would allow the speed and acceleration to be increased by sacrificing some of the unnecessary precision.

The second part of your point, which is getting the manipulator (holding a paddle) to the calculated point exactly at the desired moment I see as slightly more of an issue. That said, the 'wrist' articulation should have enough torque and acceleration to effect a suitable shot from quite close range. That means that there is no need for all the joints to work in tandem for the hit and so the arm can be positioned ahead of time and simply the manipulator moved at the correct moment.

So, again, we come back to the sensors and software. From the above, the sensors and software will then need to ascertain the ball location, vector, speed and rotation and then calculate the end position, accounting for ball spin, drop and bounce.

Again, no small feat but one would argue that they must have this sussed because it's a non-starter otherwise. A robot is only as good as its software so if the goal is to play table tennis, calculating ball trajectory is a roll-a-six-to-start.

The next step is the part that interests me - how it determines the return shot. The programming could calculate all return trajectories possible from the end position, select the best one and then calculate the position the manipulator needs to be in to hit that shot. Alternately, it could calculate the quickest position to get into that will intercept the ball and then work out the range of available shots from there, which would be a subset of the full range above, given the arm/paddle position has already been chosen.

How it decides which of all those possible shots is the 'best' is another question! I will be interested to see if there are sensors to track the player's position (and, ideally, direction they are moving in) and if the software uses that to select the best shot, playing to the left if the opposing player is moving to the right, etc...

The way I see it, the engineering challenge is speed and acceleration, not precision and the software challenge is shot selection. It will be interesting from both points of view!

1 0
dan1980

Very cool but it seems that the main task would be that of sensors and software, no?

A robot performing a task with agility, speed and (of course) precision is one thing but a robot being able to react to real world situations on-the-fly is surely the real trick here and if they can pull that off then I will be suitably impressed.

All the robot itself has to be capable of is to move the paddle from some defined neutral range of positions to any calculated return position in less than the time it takes for the ball to reach that position. From there, it's down to the sensors to locate and track the ball and the software to calculate the trajectory and then plot a return shot.

None of that is likely to be easy but again, it's really a software/sensor achievement right?

2 0

G20 gives Google, Microsoft, Apple et al tax deadline

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Looking for a new round of fat brown envelops

Big companies (and very rich individuals) want complexity in business and tax law. They want that complexity because it weights things in their favour by forming barriers that only larger companies can overcome and loopholes that only they can exploit.

Loopholes like this provide a monetary benefit to those already in a strong position, while denying that same benefit to smaller companies. Excluding all other concerns, that fact alone makes it worth all this attention.

Of course, that's not what the aforementioned finance ministers/treasurers are looking at but the best we can hope for from politicians seems to be them accidentally doing a good thing in the course of their greed and self-aggrandisement.

2 0

CERN outlines plan for new 100km circumference supercollider

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Is that really the best place to build these things?

As an Aussie, I vote for Westralia - nice big craton over there. That said, you'd want to avoid building it any place that even smelled a bit like mineral wealth as you'd very certainly get your black hole then.

As for the Alps, perhaps the mountains actually are a benefits, blocking out some cosmic rays?

0 0

Google invades videoconferencing market with Chromebox for Meetings

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Why pay for Google?

@Mikel

Thanks for the response but when I read "Google has one weird trick" I just couldn't not think of those jiggling ads you see all about the web: "Use this one weird trick to lose weight/make women sleep with you/cure diabetes/enlarge you what-not".

Unless that was a clever bit of word play on your part, implying that their 'one weird trick' is in fact simply spewing advertisements all over the place. In which case, well played, sir.

2 2
dan1980

Maybe these are just the cries of a man hopelessly left behind by modern technology and business practices but it still amazes me that a company whose main source of revenue comes from mining user data and using that to display ads actually manages to get anyone to pay to use their services.

I realise that, in using a paid Google apps/mail account, you don't see the ads that are shown to free users but to think that the data isn't being scraped all the same is naive. Moreover, it's probably even more valuable to them as there is even more information.

Of course, this may end up to be a great product, functionality and cost wise.

3 2

Android console on the way? Amazon slurps gamehaus Double Helix

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Hobble, nonsense?

Digital media brings a very real concern: unauthorised copying*.

In the end, it comes down to a conflict between the concerns of companies (to protect their revenue) and the rights and expectations of consumers.

While it is of course important to ensure that businesses have the necessary laws to protect their interests, in this case, those laws (such as DMCA) are protecting businesses at the expense of consumers and their rights.

As such, it is my opinion that where these two competing interests collide, the law should favour the consumer. Directly in this area, you cannot restrict the rights of all consumers due to what you believe some of them might (or even will) do.

Everything should, therefore, be 'transferable', and that includes licenses for digital media** and any such license that specified that it is 'non-transferable' would be in breach of consumer law.

You can argue that when you buy a license to read a copy of a published work you are not actually buying that work so the same rules don't apply, but then when you buy a ticket to see a movie at a cinema you are not actually buying the movie itself but yet you are fully able to transfer the ticket.

Likewise, you should not be able to restrict on what devices a legally-purchased copy/license is used, such as Amazon do with e-books purchased from their Kindle store. Any such restrictions should be considered in breach of consumer law where they are enforced by licensing terms and anti-competitive where enforced by technical means.

I find it decidedly disingenuous for these content providers to, on one hand, insist that digital media is not the same as physical media and thus the more restrictive licenses are warranted, and yet on the other hand insist that breach of those licenses is indentical to theft of a physical item.

The most disturbing (though unsurprising) part is that our politicians seem to agree with this faulty logic.

* - Sure, you can copy a physical book too, but it's a lot of effort and not without costs in time and money.

** - This includes 'rental' or similar concepts. If I rent a DVD from the local store on a 3-day hire, I can watch it and then give it to my brother to watch, before taking it back. Of course I am responsible for it so if he loses or damages the disc, I have to pay whatever penalties are involved.

3 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Up against it

To the down-voter, I assume @dogged's comment was not so much a dig against Nintendo as gently pointing out that @MJI mispelled the console's name (adding an extra 'i').

Or not, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

0 0

Twitter shares tank as blabbergasm implodes in full glare of unforgiving investors

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Also

@Mage

Hey - why wouldn't you want to "join the conversation"?

Actually, that reminds me of a skit by The Chaser team here in Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMayQpEl6bk

3 0

Dell disputes 15k layoff figure: Only a few staffers accepted 'voluntary separations'

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: expect it to be significant and ongoing

Re 'stack ranking'.

Surely the goal would be to have 100% of the company working well?

I just can't see how such a system could result in anything other than a culture where employees only look out for themselves, rather than working constructively for the good of the company. In short, why would you want to turn your company into a giant series of 'Survivor'?

3 0

Windows 8.1 becomes world's fourth-most-popular desktop OS

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: And what have we learned Microsoft?

Thanks for all the responses folks.

My list was kind of a just a spewing of things that I could think of at the time. The point was not that these were all changes for the worse, nor that there was no way to customise things, but that there were enough differences in the interface to justify a preference for XP/2003 on that basis alone and, therefore, to refute ecofeco's claim that Win7 was essentially WinXP with improved internals.

The fact that some people prefer the Windows 7 interface to that of XP is proof that that they are not the same.

Very few interface changes are objectively good or bad so anyone claiming that Windows 7 (or 8) has a 'better' interface than XP is welcome to that opinion but must accept that the opposing opinion is every bit as valid.

0 0
dan1980
Reply Icon
Megaphone

Re: And what have we learned Microsoft?

There is enough that is different to warrant having a preference one way or the other. You evidently prefer 7 over XP, but it seems that PLENTY of people feel the opposite.

The changes might not be monumental but there are enough of them and they add up.

The taskbar for instance. Perhaps you and certainly others love the new style. I just plain don't. I much prefer the quicklaunch + taskbar of XP to the integrated version. I prefer the default combine behaviour of XP too - the way it creates multiple taskbar icons for multiple instances of a program and then combines them when the task bar is full. I also prefer that, once combined, the icons show numerical indicators for the number of open windows rather than just a graphical, stacked icon representation. I also think it's neater to be able to click the quick launch icon multiple times to spawn additional instances of a program, rather than right-clicking the tile in Windows 7 and then selecting the program.

I prefer the XP 'All Programs' menu, which allows you to see, well, all your programs, rather than having to scroll up and down through a fixed-size list (with scroll bars that often cut off folder titles and looks a bit messy).

I dislike Windows 7's search function and find XP's version FAR superior. Working with 2003 a 2008/R2 servers daily, it is demonstrably quicker to search and 2008R2 server REMOTELY from a 2003 server and the results easier to process.

Libraries. I understand what they are trying to do but they fairly force you to use them - even if you don't want to. The familiar icon to open Windows Explorer now takes you directly to your 'Libraries' folder. To change that you have to make a custom shortcut that is FAR from intuitive to do. Likewise when you save a file, the default location is always the Libraries folder. A registry hack is required to disable that.

And the control panel view. Ignoring the renaming and re-organising of some options (some do make a bit more sense[1]), why can we only view by 'Category', 'Large icons' or 'Small icons'? I, personally, can process the control panel icons better as an alphabetically-sorted vertical list but MS have decided that I should no longer have that option. Why remove the list & details view?

And then there are the things they got rid of, such as the filmstrip view. Yes you can approximate this with the preview pane but it's not the same. At any rate, why couldn't they have both?

And what about the shared folder icon? Gone. Previously you could just look at a folder/drive and instantly see which folders were shared. Yes, yes, there are other ways to do this but why change it in the first place? (And, changing it, why not give users the option to change back?)

There are other changes that I still can't understand. These may be more noticeable on the server side but the kernel is the same so still relevant. For some reason, MMCs treat IP addresses as a text field. I have no idea why except laziness. To see this in action, open up DNS/DHCP management on a 2003 and 2008/R2 server and sort by IP address. Why MS? WHY!!!???

Then there are the changes to menu items and wording that I still can't see the justification for. Take printers. For some reason, right-clicking a printer and selecting 'Properties' now shows a rather useless screen. To get the same screen as in XP/2003, you need to right click and select 'Printer Properties'. Why?

Further, when you have multiple copies of the same printer - say one for B&W and another for colour (so you can set permissions accordingly) - though they show up as two separate icons, as you would expect, when you try to go to the properties, you then have to select the specific instance. Surely the fact that you clicked on the one you wanted to start with should be indication enough, right?

I really could go on - window sizes aren't remembered, auto-arrange is now forced in folders, the network icon in the system tray doesn't show activity, forced 'navigation pane' in Explorer - but the point is that there are numerous changes and they all add up to quite a big difference.

I appreciate the desire to streamline and improve the interface but the way that MS approach this is to make their decisions based on how they want you to use the software or think you will. If you fit with that then you may well benefit from the changes. If you don't then, well, you may find that the new interface is worst than the one it replaces.

MS's response to any complaints or feedback is always the same, which is to say that users will like it once they get used to it. That response is arrogant and, frankly, insulting as it is essentialy saying "we're right and you're wrong". Given that people use their computers in different ways, that's quite presumptuous - to assert that they have created an interface so perfect that everyone, no matter their workload or personal preferences, will find the new interface across the board better than the old one.

It is important to note that none of this is a matter of being stubborn or refusing to change; I am an IT worker and work on servers and PCs with different operating systems all day. I spend just as much time on Win7/2008R2 as I do on XP/2003 - probably more. In so doing, I find that some tasks are just quicker and more intuitive with XP/2003. Some changes in 7 were great - I like the window snap feature and I like the integrated search/run box but there isn't one improvement in 7 that couldn't have been added while still keeping the rest of XP[2].

MS (and their apologists) have to understand that when a user (i.e. customer) says that they don't like some aspect of a new interface or prefer the old version, that opinion is valid.

[1] - E.g. 'Programs and Features' for the old 'Add/Remove Programs'. Does what it says on the tin, but to me it makes more sense to list via the noun than the verb and the new 'features' that you can turn on and off justify the change anyway.

[2] - Take the searching, for example. Sure that might be better for some but would it really have been that hard to just have a little 'advanced search' option that works like XP's?

16 2
dan1980

And what have we learned Microsoft?

What these numbers should show is that people just simply like the XP interface. Sure, some like 7 and even 8 better, but it's clear that for a great number of users, XP just works better.

Yes, XP is outdated and yes, the more modern OSs have better security. Solution? How about MS learn from this and make their new OS (9?) look at function like XP at the front-end and like 8 on the back-end.

8 0

Devs: We'll bury Candy Crush King under HEAPS of candy apps

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: More than just a name?

Isn't a trademark more than just a name?"

A trademark can be any identifying symbol or wording. That's its purpose - to identify a particular brand or product and in practice almost anything that serves that purpose can be trademarked.

For example, "Coca Cola" would involve multiple trademarks - the name itself, the logo, the bottle shape, the design on the bottle/can and any phrases they use, such as "Enjoy Coke" and so on.

Of course, none of that is defending the words 'Candy' and 'Saga' as trademarks.

2 0

Is modern life possible without a smartphone?

dan1980
Reply Icon

Or vice-versa - seeing something and not knowing if it is a good deal or not only to go home, check it and then miss out because it gets sold out!

3 0
dan1980

Yes, of course it is.

Some jobs, however, are simply easier with a smart phone. I don't have one but there are definitely times when having one would save me time or allow me to leave my laptop behind.

That is where smart phones shine and reveal their value - providing convenience and saving time. If a smart phone enables you to travel lighter or to complete a task in one minute that would otherwise take five minutes and three phone calls, then that device has made your life better and is worthwhile.

If, on the other hand, you end up wasting your time posting pictures of your lunch online then it's probably going to work out better for you if you give it a miss.

6 0

ChewBacca point-of-sale keylogger SLURPS your CREDIT CARD data

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Sir

@Stacy

Why can it connect to any IP? Because in small retailers (as this particular attack appears to target) the POS is usually connected to a commodity PC running Windows with a software stack for the actual card reader. The PC itself may have other software installed such as links with inventory management software.

In short, it's a basic, commodity PC without any specific security.

I'm not saying it's a good situation, but in contracting work for a friend's company, I saw retail staff browsing the Internet on POS PCs. This malware appears to be targeted at these types of machines.

0 0

Cameron: UK public is fine with domestic spying

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Look on the bright side

@Winkypop

The problem with Abbott is not that he is stupid, it's that he's a sanctimonious git. (Rather like Cameron I suppose . . .)

2 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Look on the bright side

@MrDamage

Your post seems to imply that the Hon. Tony Abbott spends periods of time as the PM engaged in something other than ass-hattery.

3 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

"Power corrupts . . . "

True, but in this instance, I think that such power as comes with political clout attracts those who are corrupt.

6 0

HARD ONES: Three new PC games that are BLOODY DIFFICULT

dan1980
Reply Icon

@David W.

"I swear to god, if I hear one more game with 'saga' in the title, I'm going to scream. YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING EPIC BY SLAPPING 'SAGA' ON THE NAME!"

Step 1: read article.

Step 2: comment.

Clear?

Candy Crush (think that's right) Saga is a stupid use of the term, agreed. "Banner Saga", being a game about a Norse saga depicted on a banner, is, perhaps, an acceptable use. No?

Again, read first, comment second (or not at all).

2 0
dan1980
Reply Icon
Meh

Re: @ Ragarath

@AC - 13:48 - "And there are many games where a player might want to try different tactics but limited savepoints and limited spawnpoints make experimentation too painful."

Exactly. Take FFXIII, for example. Not an overly hard game and, like most FFs pretty much on rails but the simple change of allowing you to replay any battle actually increased the enjoyment and, in some instances, the difficulty.

Why? Because, like many RPGs where you 'level-up', you can just grind until you are a sufficient level and blast through an area that might have been giving you trouble. There's no difficulty there - you just grind easier enemies until you're powerful enough. It also stalls the story as in some 'difficult' RPGs, you may need to go back and grind for several hours just to be able to avoid being 1HKO'd in a new area.

Where's the fun, or indeed the challenge there?

FFXIII's mechanic meant that you could go through and, when reaching a tough enemy or area, work to improve your tactics rather than just go back and mindlessly grind.

In some RPGs, you might spend an hour in a 'dungeon' only to get to the end and be overwhelmed by the boss, putting you back at the start. Most people will try again but after failing a second time will go back and grind a bit until their characters are stronger.

The point is that that approach took no skill; it's the equivalent of being beaten in a fight and then coming back with ten mates.

FFXIII allows a different, more satisfying approach, which is to figure out the optimal strategy to bring down a boss or enemy that would otherwise be beyond your level.

The same goes for many games with more liberal save points.

Difficulty is one thing; a grind is another.

1 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Less than generous respawn points ... rehashing whole swathes of levels again and again

"If you can't beat it stop crying to your Mum that you can't. Man (or girl) up and actually get better at the game."

And, actually, that's kind of the point; games are not just for kids - those of us who grew up playing hard, unforgiving, non-saveable games (I'm looking at you, R-Type, Probotector*) are now adults, with jobs and responsibilities; kids of our own even.

Most of us remember those old-school games fondly but our relationship with games has matured and changed as we (hopefully) have.

What that means is that the chief measure of a game is if we enjoy it. Some of us enjoy a challenge, to be sure, and some of us still feel we could show the newer generation of gamers a thing or two (I'm not as old as that makes me sound!), but when you are trying to fit games around the, frankly more important parts of your life, then a game without save points is not a game that's going to get much use.

The fact is that I like a challenge but sometimes I only have a half hour or so at night - perhaps an hour or two on the weekends. I can't speak for everyone else but I suspect many others here are the same. Do I not get to enjoy challenging games just because I only have short periods in which to play them?

But anyway, games don't have to be challenging to be enjoyable and if your gaming consists of less-challenging, more story-driven (or mindless fun) games then that does not in any way make you less of a 'gamer' because it's not a competition.

* - "Contra" to those from the US.

16 0

Yes, HP will still sue you if you make cartridges for its inkjet printers

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: re: NEVER purchase anything made by HP

@Rolad6

The Officejet 8000/8500 series . . .

Never, in my life, have I been filled with such IT rage as the first time I dealt with one of those abominations. Unless it was the second (and subsequent) times I have been forced to configure, reconfigure, uninstall, clean, reinstall (thrice sequentially) and wrangle that truly hateful software package.

As a printer, it seemed to be acceptable and certainly as a value proposition on paper it appeared quite handsomely appointed and a good fit for small offices. But, as a package, it was, well, less handsome.

That it takes 300MB of software to enable network scanning is annoying. That that software takes three quarters of an hour to install (and about as long to uninstall) is insane. That the software is buggy and requires re-installation every other week seals that printer as worst I have ever seen.

That said, those printers were a good little earner for my company (one 'fix' took over 3 hours of uninstalls, updated downloads and re-installs) but the resulting TCO* meant that, even for an office of just 3 people, a rental agreement on a 'proper' machine was a much better option.

God I hated those printers! (Hourly-rates not withstanding : )

* - Bingo!

1 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: IANAL

@Flocke Kroes

While I don't disagree with you, I believe the particular cases mentioned involve companies making entirely new cartridges, rather than refilling old ones. I believe that was the point of contention around them being called 'remanufactured'.

If the cartridges themselves contain patented technology and the third-party versions copy that technology (however vaguely you define it) then the claim is sound unless the patent is invalidated.

I think that's the case, but don't approve of it - they're going backwards. Deliberately. The right way to do things is to make the disposable part as cheap and simple as possible. No plastic box filled with ink should be so complex as to justify a patent so what they do is integrate more functionality inside this component. In the process, they make that component more expensive for the consumer - win-win!!

36 0

New Doctor Who's new costume newly REVEALED by Beeb

dan1980

Nice pose

Is Malcolm Tucker auditioning for a boy band?

4 0

Microsoft to Australian government: our kit has no back doors

dan1980
Windows

Good one guys.

Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . stop it, you're killing me.

16 0

Spot the joints: You say backup, I say archiving

dan1980

Ambiguous marketing fluff

Terms like 'archive' are ambiguous so it's best to adequately clarify exactly what you are talking about. This article seems to use the term to mean several different things at different points and indeed simultaneously. I say seems because the marketing-speak quoted throughout is somewhat sales-y and vague.

What I have found when discussing this topic with clients (internal or external) is that labels like 'backup', 'archive', 'disaster recovery', 'nearline', 'hot', 'cold', etc... are all a distraction. For me, the place to start from and that must be always kept as you guide throughout any implementation/management/review cycle is what are you trying to achieve?

Saving money is great but must take a back seat to ensuring you have a system that actually does what you need.

For example, if the requirement you are trying to fulfill is to meet the obligations of a particular tender, that specifies that data from the client must be kept segregated from other client data - both while live and 'backed-up' - with monthly point-in-time copies to be stored in an off-line format (i.e. unconnected to any external or internal network whatsoever) at a nominated, 3rd-party off-site storage service then that requires a different approach and solution than "we need to keep 7 years of payroll data".

Both these situations call for what would be termed an 'archive' but both are quite different.

As with everything, the key to assessing different solutions is to have a clear, well-defined idea of what you are trying to achieve.

That is just common sense; the important point is that labeling those goals with terms like 'backup' and 'archive' make them less clear and lesswell-defined.

Marketing teams love such labels for precisely the same reason.

2 0

Snowden speaks: NSA spies create 'databases of ruin' on innocent folks

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: @Trevor_Pott

I don't quite agree with Trevor's phrasing but I agree with his main point. That much should be obvious from my posts.

I don't, however, believe those who disagree to be cowards; at least not necessarily.

For my part, my view stems from a personal preference: that liberty and freedom are essential to my own happiness. I would of course love safety as well, but, like any reasonable person, I have priorities and safety is somewhat further down the list than freedom.

What follows is selfish - I want a society that protects what is essential to my happiness and quality of life, even if it must lessen the surety of my safety to do so.

@Titus evidently has a different personal preference; to him, safety is evidently more important than liberty and freedom and thus he wants a society that preferences the safety of its citizens even at the cost of their freedoms.

When I promote and argue for a society that preferences freedom over safety, I am promoting a society that accords with my personal happiness but is in opposition to Titus's personal happiness.

So how do we resolve this?

From an objective standpoint, treating both safety and liberty as equally important, you have to ask yourself which will be the harder to regain if it is lost?

My answer, as well as Trevor's and a great many people on this forum, is that liberty and freedom are by far the harder to regain. History (as well as contemporary events) has shown us that when a people lose their freedoms, the only way to regain them is either a violent revolution or a long, drawn-out conflict; neither without loss of life.

In places like Egypt and Syria we have seen just how much bloodshed can result from such conflicts. And, while hard information is difficult to come by, some reports estimate up to 200,000 people interred in North Korean 'labour camps' - often for life, which, in the conditions is often not all that long, with a terrible attrition rate due to starvation, frostbite, illness, etc... Many of the people in these camps are political prisoners.

The point is that whatever safety you gain in abandoning freedom and liberty, you will lose far more safety in trying to regain those freedoms and liberties.

As a parting thought, let me address one of your (@Titus) statements:

"That said it is still my opinion that the most effective defense against terrorism is police action supported by effective intelligence.

That opinion is valid and you are entitled to it, but is largely beside the main point, which is that the goal of 'defen[ding] against terrorism', however important, is not more important than defending against the loss of freedom and liberty.

To quote Shep Smith (Fox News) when discussing torture: "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f%$king torture!!"

Easily adaptable to this situation. The message is that 'effective[ness]' is not the sole criterion when determining the best course of action. As someone above said, it would be even more effective to put cameras and microphones in every room of every house, apartment, store, office block and public toilet. We could also implant every person with tracking devices that monitor their movements and everything they say, do and see. That would be more effective but that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

3 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

@terra

Perhaps, and for every "power always thinks that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws" or "there is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty" there may well be a Sedition Act*.

But the broader question, I suppose, is: when looking back at 21st century America, would Bush, Obama et al rather the histories say that the US faced tragedy and terror and stood firm, neither cowering nor wavering but instead strengthened their commitment to liberty and freedom or that they sold cheaply the freedoms so dearly won during the American Revolution?

Ignoring the 'Founding Fathers', for what values will the presidents and politicians of this era be known?

And at any rate, I am not a US citizen, just someone who knows a few, the majority of whom strongly believe in the ideals of freedom and liberty as the cornerstones and guiding principals of that country.

* - Not that Adams actually supported that Act (and the associated others) but, nevertheless, he signed it into law.

10 1
dan1980
Reply Icon

@Trevor_Pott

Yep. At some point, the people of the US (and their government) have to ask themselves what is more important - their "essential libert[ies]" or their "temporary safety".

A hackneyed quote perhaps but apt nonetheless.

When thinking about the men and women who instituted, supported, expanded, conducted and concealed these activities, I wonder how they would answer, face-to-face with some of the founding fathers of their their country, who professed the value of liberty and freedom above all other concerns.

17 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Charles Manning

. . . and if it can be proven you're not finding the needles anyway?

Given that, the implication is that you can either have marginally more effective protection but at the cost of the near-complete loss of your privacy or you can have less-effective protection but keep your privacy.

Matt Bryant's rants aside, Alexander has all but confirmed that this broad, ongoing erosion of privacy has not appreciably made the US a safer place so what, then, is the pay-off for the loss of privacy?

Given it's the people who are both the recipients (ostensibly) of the protection and the targets of the surveillance, shouldn't it be up to them to decide how much they are willing to pay for that protection?

47 1

Australia floats plan for national social media regulator

dan1980

Tony Abbott summed up:

Less big-media regulation, more personal (social) media regulation; less assistance for low-income earners, more assistance for perfect nuclear families.

(And don't go on about how Labor aren't/weren't any better - that's not relevant.)

1 0
dan1980

I don't use 'social media'* and so these regulations shouldn't affect me.

That said, it is very much the principle and the precedent this would set. The laws that would be passed would require certain powers which risk encroaching into other areas and in service of other, less 'noble', goals.

We have seen time and again that such laws end up using overly broad language and contain very few safeguards and, as such, are capable of being broadened. Even if the laws, as written, are sufficiently narrow and targeted to do only what they are there for (protecting children from online bullying that may plausibly lead to suicide), the existence of such a legal and procedural framework makes it all the more easy to extend it at a later date.

Preventing youth suicide is a cause that is close to my heart (for various reasons) but still I do not support this plan.

Teen suicide has been a problem for a long time - well before 'social media' - but there is no denying that modern technologies can exacerbate the problem. Just as the Internet can make it easier to browse a store's catalogue or share photos with friends, it can make it easier for someone to be bullied, harassed and tormented.

I don't have the answers (I wish I did) but establishing such a worrisome precedent is not one of them.

* - Yes, you could call this social media of a sort, but I don't feel it's quite the same.

** - Though not so rubbish that a trip to and stay in the hospital wasn't required. Fun times.

1 0

US govt watchdog slams NSA snooping as illegal, useless against terrorism

dan1980

Sorry, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee is angry because an oversight body went beyond its scope?

That would be quite agreeably funny were it not for the fact that Rogers doesn't seem to appreciate the humour too.

1 1

Amateurs find the 'HOLY GRAIL' supernova – right on our doorstep

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: No neutrinos?

Even at 12 million LY, I would think that it would be too far away to directly detect any neutrinos as they would be somewhat swamped by other sources. I believe one would have to be in our galaxy before we would be able to see an appreciable and identifiable burst from a supernova.

I don't know what the dust has to do with it.

0 0

MPAA spots a Google Glass guy in cinema, calls HOMELAND SECURITY

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Not on. Just not.

Sorry all - I have to apologise for the multitude of errors in that post; I was on the train on my laptop and it was getting close to my stop. (Any excuse eh Dan?)

People in the US deserve the right to watch a movie in peace, I live in Sydney, and of course it is the MPAA orAFACT.

That said, I do like Sydney and the MPPA and/of AFACT can still fuck off.

1 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Yeah no offense to anyone but

@AC 22/1 - 01:03

Consider yourself unique.

I have been posting to this site for 6 months and this is the FIRST post I have ever down-voted. I am against it, personally, as most people on here are fairly clue-y and down-voting on the basis of disagreement is not really my style.

However, your post was an almost perfect storm of:

  • Wilful ignorance (you clearly didn't read the article properly)
  • Disrespect to the author (refer to the above)
  • Unnecessary swearing (I am not adverse to 'colourful metaphors' but there is really no justification here)

Short version is that if you go on a rant that more-or-less accuses the author of being one or more of:

  • Stupid
  • A liar
  • gullible
  • misinformed

Then you better have at least read the article.

I hope it's another six months (or more) before I read another comment so bad as to prompt a down-vote; Certainly yours will take a lot of beating.

14 0
dan1980

Not on. Just not.

"While we’re huge fans of technology and innovation, wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theater."

How about get fucked, hmm?

This kind of thing doesn't really happen in Australia, thankfully (I'm not suggesting it couldn't happen), so I say that in support of the good, ordinary, law-abiding people of the US, who I feel deserve to right to watch a damned movie in peace.

And really, is it that common that someone in one of the largest cities in the US is going to be doing this, rather than someone in a smaller area (where MPAA types are unlikely to be hanging around), or in another country?

Maybe it is - who am I to say, but I am pretty sure I could walk into any cinema in Australia, set up a personal video camera and proceed uninterrupted. I like in Sydney (the most populous city over here) and plenty of times I haven't even had my ticket checked (presumably the chap was in the bathroom).

But yeah, all that aside, fuck off and leave people the hell alone.

There has to be a set of rules that the authorities have to follow in these instances as it is just not civil to march into a a cinema, where some has paid their money to watch a movie, demand that person leave and then question them.

I am rarely moved to bouts of overt patriotism (that's not really the Australian way - bogans and their Southern Cross tattoos aside) but I love Australia. we have our problems but I'm pretty sure that if someone identifying themselves as an employee of the MPAA of AFACT (the Australian arm*) called up the local police station and asked them to come straight away to the local cinema because someone might just be filming a feature presentation . . . well, let's just say they would likely be polite and tell them they would be there once they were able but would find more (or less) important things to do.

Hell, even known sources of copyright violations, such as the markets in Chinatown in Melbourne are pretty much ignored by the fine officers of the law (I mean that - our cops are fantastic**) who largely have better things to do than shakedown a few people doing no real harm to anyone.

* - For all intents and purposes

** - The overwhelming majority that is - there are always a few corrupt/vindictive/overbearing/self-important w$#kers in any position of authority.

10 0

If you reckon Google will never tap into Nest's Wi-Fi thermostats, guess again

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: The law needs to put the consumer first (not the companies)

@DougS

Ha! No, not in Australia either (and we have decent protection laws).

0 0
dan1980

The law needs to put the consumer first (not the companies)

This is what I would like to see enshrined in consumer law:

  • Whatever the promises around privacy, etc... when you buy a device (piece of software, video game, etc...), those promises must be held for the life of the device - regardless of any other factors.

  • It is illegal to insert less-favourable terms as part of a software update.

  • If for any reason those promises are reneged upon, the user has the right to a full refund, regardless of age or condition, at the greater of either the original purchase price or current price (to account for inflation and needing to replace the device with a similar alternative),

What that means, in short, is that if I buy an internet connected device and the manufacturer promises to collect only anonymised data and to never share that with any other parties then not only can they never start collecting identifiable data, if they are bought out by another company, that new owner can't either and no future software update can ever force my consent.

In a similar vein, I think that when one company buys another, all historical, identifiable customer data should be sanitised. I appreciate that that may be problematic and even unreasonable in some instances.

Take the following (simplistic) scenario for example:

1. I sign up with Australian telco.

2. Australian telco promises to never disclose my data to anyone, except where required by law.

3. Australian telco is bought by US telco.

4. All collected data on me is now legally available to the US government.

Ignoring the possibility that my data is already slurped by the NSA, this kind of thing happens all the time - Optus in Australia was bought by SingTel - I never signed up to have my details available to this Singaporean company. Even if I had canceled my account with Optus prior to the buy-out, my historical data would still be available to them.

Likewise, if I allow a company I like, with good business practices to have some of my data, I should have some rights when a company I do not like and with bad business practices buys them out.

16 0

Those NSA 'reforms' in full: El Reg translates US Prez Obama's pledges

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Bong Puffer Aim Off Due to Parallax

@Don Jefe

". . . parallax is a motherfucker of a thing."

"See Matt, it's when you say stuff like that gets me wondering if your occasionally valid commentary is a fluke, kind of a shotgun approach to reason, or if you make those posts when you're drunk."

"I once saw a documentary where people couldn't recognize themselves in photos or a mirror."

"The giveaway was how you repeat everything your superiors say. I say something, you repeat it."

"Instead of being the raving lunatic on the busy street corner, using a cheeseburger for a loin cloth and covered in My Little Pony tattoos . . ."

You're a bit of a meanie sometimes mate, but you don't half crack me up.

The thing about Matt is that there are corners of the Internet where he would fit right in, but he chooses to post here instead (or maybe as well). I'm glad that he does; it would be a boring place if everyone gave sane, well-reasoned commentary all the time.

0 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: I have no representative government

@Charles

I think you have been the one to hit closest to the mark here.

At that point, democracy becomes an illusion to keep the people occupied. The argument from the NSA &c would be that it is in the people's best interest that they withhold certain information. The counter argument is that representative government is about the people (through their representatives) telling the government what they believe is in their best interests and not the other way round.

0 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: We the sheepeople...

"The difference has only been which "things" they want to control. . . . They all wanted more control over _something_."

I think (well I would) that an important corollary to this is that, while each side might increase control over different aspects of society, they rarely roll-back the extra control instituted by the 'other side'. The only thing that swapping Governments does is make sure that the extent of control over these areas is kept (broadly) in step.

1 0
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: A little escape hole here...

"Well, so what? Any c--t with an email address can do that."

One would ague that you wouldn't have to be a so-and-so but that's not the point.

Scraping dross from Facebook is useful, but not madly so. It becomes a whole lot more useful (and therefore the collection, storage and analysis becomes more invasive) when you cross-reference that data with all the other data that the NSA have access to that "any c--t with an e-mail address" wouldn't.

The worrisome part about 'big data' is that information that is relatively harmless and has always been available to those willing to record it, is able to be combined with numerous other sets of similarly mundane information and the result is most definitely greater than the sum of its parts.

That alone is concerning enough as it allows people with access to that data to gain sometimes scarily accurate pictures of our lives but when you get the daddy of all 'big data' in the form of the NSA (as they are a kind of meta big data) and add in the more private information they are able to amass, you have something that is a very real invasion of privacy.

The standard has always been that you could have your publicly-accessible information recorded but this fails as a reasonable guide in the connected, digital age. The standard should not be to assess any given piece of information in isolation*, but to take the whole collection that's been (and is being) gathered and ask whether a person would be reasonably able to collect all that data 'in public'.

* - For example, my conversations while at lunch could be considered publicly available and thus recorded without any concern.

0 1
dan1980
Reply Icon

How?

While you are technically correct and we can't know for sure, when you look at what has been said, Alexander et al have had to continually revise down their grand statements of the number of terrorist attacks they have prevented.

We start with Obama thundering the government line that the NSA's unpopular snooping has, really and truly, been effective because it has saved real lives by 'foiling' 54 terror plots. Fifty-four! Well, that certainly sounds impressive to me - keep up the good work!!

Only no, that was not actually the case. In fact the only real action that anyone can point to as being 'thwarted' by the NSA does not involve any actual or threatened terrorist act but an individual providing 'material support' to terrorists; in this case, a cab driver sending $8,500 to Al Shabab in Somalia.

Given the Government have been so eager to trot out '54', one can plausibly argue that, while some information may be too sensitive to release, if there really was such a large number of foiled terror plots, then we should expect the government to be very eager to point out whatever specifics they could.

1 1
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Best intentions != right

@FormerKowloonTonger

From what I can tell, your post amounts to:

(North) America came and saved your behinds twice so how dare you have a go at us for trying to protect our own country!

First up, the US involvement in WWI was orchestrated by the banks and the arms/munitions manufacturers. It was motivated, quite simply, by greed.

You can deny that, but that finding (by Nye) was the very thing that set the US to the isolationist position (and associated Neutrality Acts) that saw them initially stay out of WW2, and that you seem to be advocating now.

What brought the US into WW2 is a complex question but one simple truth is that Hitler's Germany was an aggressive, ruthless, expansionist, intolerant, genocidal, totalitarian military machine.

And, in the year between the French surrender and the dissolution of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Britain and the Commonwealth were shouldering the lion's share of the burden of defending against that threat.

FDR knew that and saw the defeat of Germany as essential for the safety and prosperity of the USA. He said as much and was in talks with Churchill even before Pearl Harbor.

As you remember that period "vividly" I expect that you will also remember how the increasing financial and materiel involvement in the war slashed the unemployment rate in the US (which was as high as 25%), and the eventual full involvement all but ended the Great Depression.

I appreciate that you experienced that period first hand while I did not, but so long as you aren't suggesting that personal, subjective experience is the same thing as objective, dispassioned analysis, we can still have an intelligent discussion.

Trying (and probably failing) to keep to that dispassioned ideal, if there was ever a war that could be seen so starkly as 'good-vs-evil' it was World War 2. Britain and the Allies tried diplomatic means to avoid conflict, realising that war with Germany would be devastating for everyone. Once it was clear that nothing short of war would stop Hitler, the Allies had no choice.

The North American position of viewing that situation as 'not their fight' is not a great deal dissimilar to someone walking past a mugging and not getting involved because it's on the other side of the street and, therefore, 'not their problem'.

FDR understood that and polls at the time show that, even prior to Pearl Harbor, the US public were starting to understand that too. (Maybe you didn't feel that way but records from the period show that you would have been in a minority, albeit a not insignificant one.)

You evidently have different views than I do, but it's hard to make out the specifics between the malformed ellipses, omnipresent square-brackets (I favour parentheses), melodramatic gasps, belittling of those younger than yourself, repeated exhortations to alternately notice and ignore puns, and, of course, your all-consuming fear of Islam.

Perhaps that is the sum of your views - that you are continually disappointed by youth, unfailingly devoted to the bracket and the period (full-stop), never-endingly surprised and shocked, internally conflicted about puns and constantly scared of Muslims.

If so, then you are, of course, entitled to your opinions but it would be nice if you stopped declaring that people who disagree with you are, ipso facto, know-nothing youngsters. Proximity to an event does not automatically bestow understanding of that event and age does not automatically bestow intelligence, or wisdom.

2 2
dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Yawn

@AC-15:38

That would be an acceptable reading of the situation were it not for the fact that these oversteps (to put it mildly) have been going on since well before Obama's time, under both Democrat and Republican 'leadership'.

Regardless of whomever is in, these policies have received broad, bi-partisan support over many years - not just for the continuation of such programs but for their expansion as well.

To assume that this started with Obama and (regardless of current revelations) would have ended with his second term is naive beyond words.

'Uncle Sam' is probably the right term, being as it (he?) is, a personification of the US Government as a body and concept, rather than any specific party or leader or, more importantly, the people of the country. (And is therefore a good fit, given that the people seem to be largely against this systemic over-reaching.)

5 0

Did Microsoft actually put 'get repeatedly pwned by Syrian hackers' on its 2014 todo list?

dan1980

"Redmond was forced to admit . . ."

In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with online security; these companies deny and deny until the evidence is overwhelming.

The result is that when a company like MS (or Adobe, or Sony, etc . . .) says words to the effect of "no customer data was compromised", what it really means is "no one's been able to prove customer data was compromised".

In this instance it seems that it was internal only but the take away is still the same: don't be honest unless you have to. (Apparently.)

14 0

ESA rejoices as comet-chasing Rosetta probe wakes from 3-year nap

dan1980
Reply Icon

Re: Gender specific spacecraft

@Johnathan Richards 1

"But if it's named for the Rosetta Stone, then the moniker derives from the place where the stone was unearthed, in Egypt, which is definitely an 'it'."

Places most certainly have a gender. Most countries (can't speak for specific towns/localities) are feminine in French, which is the relevant language in this case and indeed 'Rosette' is feminine.

2 0

Page: