* Posts by Milton

880 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2016

Tesla driver killed after smashing into truck had just enabled Autopilot – US crash watchdog

Milton

Warm human skin, please

"... Tesla's means of assessing whether drivers have their hands on the steering wheel – as advised when Autopilot is active – ... only measures torque – force applied by the driver to turn the wheel"

I am seriously surprised to hear this. I'd assumed that touch was sensed using some combination of IR, capacitive sensing and/or CMOS-based proximity detection—I would have flat-out disbelieved anyone telling me that torque alone was the indicator. I understand that even on a long straight, the driver's hands may be exerting a static torque (resistance to a slight turning movement, rather than initiating a corrective twist) but ... it brings to mind the driver who's decided to wedge a knee under the wheel for 20 seconds while he sends a text. There's still torque there (even if it is force applied to prevent the wheel turning), so the car will still think the driver is hands-on when he is not. Heck, you could run the seat belt through the spokes and the resistance would presumably be detected as "hands-on".

I don't much like the smell of this and would fully expect the system to do its best to confirm the presence of warm human skin on that wheel ....

Oh dear. Secret Huawei enterprise router snoop 'backdoor' was Telnet service, sighs Vodafone

Milton

"We all want to see hard proof—" No, we don't.

"We all want to see hard proof of espionage. This is absolutely not it"

Wrong for two reasons, actually.

(1) Hard proof is extremely unlikely. If anyone's kit (by which I mean hard- and software in any combination) is up to no good, you may be 100% certain it will be disguised as accidental, an unforeseen bug, oozing with plausible deniability. El Reg readers are well placed to think of all the crafty, deniable, ambiguous, seemingly accidental ways there are to disguise bad behaviour, ranging from 'unintended' buffer overflows and code execution errors to sly use of misdirection, both figurative and literal. In short, if a company like Huawei wants to leave nasties in its equipment, they will be (a) incredibly hard to find, (b) tough to prove as hostile and (c) even tougher to show as purposefullly malicious. It simply isn't hard for clever people to hide wood in a forest.

(2) The lack of proof is irrelevant, because, as I have said before, where the psychotic paranoia and power-crazed greed of nation states is concerned—especially those lacking civilised checks and balances—you must act upon capabilities, not intentions. China has a foul regime. It is an undoubted danger to democracy and basic decency in the world, and arguably a threat to the freedom of the entire species. Its companies will do whatever they are told because executives can be disappeared into prison camps with barely a ripple, no chance of a fair trial and no free press to raise a stink. China could easily include malware, spyware or saboware in stuff designed and built by Chinese companies.

And since they could, and since the stakes are existentially high, you have a duty, as either a leader or an adviser to leaders of your country, to assume that they will.

And don't get me started on the absurdity of distinguishing 'core' and 'non-core' hard-/software in this context. It's pure sophistry. Only a politician would swallow such rubbish. If you think the nurse might want to poison you, do you think opting for that injection in your toe, instead of your jugular, makes a scrap of difference?

Sophisticated Chinese equipment—which I think includes anything with a CPU and the ability to connect to the internet—absolutely should not feature in UK infrastructure. (And you probably shouldn't be buying their phones either.)

5G is Chinese firms' foot in the door to Europe as Oppo launches flagship Reno mobe in Zurich

Milton

The injection model

First sentence mentions Huawei and government fretting, putting me in mind of news today about a leak from UK government about future policy. The imbecility of our "leaders" once again staggers me.

Before your acrimonious divorce, your wife, as a GP, used to treat you herself.

For legal reasons it remains the case that if you die she will reap a large financial benefit.

You're under the weather, feeling rough and with a spot of painful gout.

Dropping the kids at her house one evening, she notes your condition and, with uncharacteristic sympathy, offers a powerful cocktail of vitamins injected straight into your jugular. She's done it before, in happier times, without harm.

This time, considering the bank balance and because you are a nasty suspicous type ... you regretfully demur.

But you do agree to a local analgesic injection into your burning, gouty toe. Because it's "non-core".

I suggest this admittedly clumsy analogy will illustrate even to the dimmest of the dim (politicians) why, if you don't trust a tech provider, the idea of allowing them only "non core" access as a way of securing your health is risibly stupid.

(Oh, and for those still arguing about why we might be sterilising ourselves of Chinese tech, I will simply repeat: Capabilities, not Intentions.)

So you've 'seen' the black hole. Now for the interesting bit – how all that raw data was stored

Milton

One optimist, one cynic ...

One optimist, one cynic ... are combined, somewhat unprepossessingly, in this tired old carcass.

The optimist is delighted by this achievement. The world seems to be in full-on 'Lunatics are taking over the asylum mode', and this amazing effort is a grand antidote. It's good to be reminded of what the best of humanity can achieve.

The cynic, on the other hand, observes that the world is full of dumb-shit politicians, liars, hypocrites and soulless greedmongers making life worse for everyone except themselves; and that the only people doing constructive, worthwhile, decent, positive things for the species are the generally humble, badly-rewarded ones: teachers, nurses, artists, writers and above all scientists.

While the teacher who educates your child has to visit a food bank (maybe because she buys lunch for some of the most deprived kids from her own pocket) your useless, evasive, podgy, halfwitted, gob-on-a-stick Member of Parliament is bagging a £250k profit selling a house the taxpayers paid for.

I am a believer in the importance of every human life, but I cannot pretend that some humans appear to be way better for our species than those who seem to be ... just a waste of oxygen. I've never forgotten the independent analysis done after the 2008 global financial crisis, comparing the social usefulness of top bankers with the people who cleaned their offices, taking into account their netted financial contributions and costs to society. The minimum-wage cleaners came out a clear winner; the bankers balanced out as highly costly parasites.

If you asked me whether I'd sacrifice the entire contents of both houses of Congress in the US, and the Commons and the Lords in the UK, to save the life of a single Einstein-calibre scientist (let's say, a Fields or Nobel nominee)—hell, I'd really have to think about that. The difference, by both character and intellect, is a grim, depressingly vast gulf.

And I can't help feeling that a species that hasn't the vision, wit or fortitude to recognise and rid itself of an existentially damaging parasitic infestation, in the shape of its most selfish, dishonest and foolish members, may deserve the fate that those people are bringing upon it.

Yep: cynic.

Just the small matter of the bill for scrapping Blighty's old nuclear submarines: It's £7.5bn

Milton

There is a cheaper way ...

Pardon me if somone's already pointed this out, for it is kind of obvious: but there are several nuclear submarines which were messily and, um, involuntarily decommissioned lying around on the world's seabeds and none of them, so far as I am aware, is a significant environmental hazard.

If we leave aside the poorer-quaity Soviet and Russian boats that went down, we have two American examples in the Atlantic, Thresher and Scorpion. Both broke up on their way down ("imploded", there being some debate even now as to whether had and how they suffered significant structural damage before this point), and are still lying in debris fields about two miles down—without, so far as we can trust the US Navy which conducts periodic monitoring of the environment, any significant radioactive pollution. At least one boat was also carrying nuclear warheads (two aboard Scorpion I believe).

So the question becomes obvious. Why not fit a decommissioned sub for one final tow (or even as deck cargo; this can be done) to a deep ocean trench, ideally in a subduction zone, with any remaining secret tech removed and a pour of extra shielding around the reactor; then a controlled scuttle to fill it with water and sink it ('controlled': to equalise pressure internally and externally to prevent a catastrophic implosion), to send it down carefully forever*? Some trenches are over five miles deep. You'd need major nation-state resources to interfere with the wrecks in any way (and they won't have any interest in 50-year-old British sub tech) and there's not a chance in hell of any terrorist fishing out the spent nuclear fuel, especially since there would always be at least a satellite watch on the zone.

Now you're talking just millions in disposal costs instead of billions, plus an annual maintenance fee for the next century to whichever nations are nearest the graveyard, by way of a thank you and for environmental monitoring etc. Everybody wins. It is entirely possible that this is less risky, and cleaner, than the fraught-with-risks process of attempting to extract spent fuel, store it, transport it, store it again and then—dispose of it where, and how? Deep-trench scuttling, unlike elaborate nuclear decommissioning/dismantling, can be done thousands of miles away from populations.

If a 60s-era sub that imploded catastrophically and is lying 9,000 down in the Altantic isn't a hazard, you can surely contrive to achieve the same thing with a planned scuttling in a well-chosen spot? I suspect that, once the engineering details are figured out (I'm sure they can come up with better ideas than me), the practicalities and economics will speak for themselves and the solitary problem remaining will be a political one. They usually are. Perhaps the common and mutual interests of all powers who have deployed nuclear subs will for once coincide to overcome even the political crap?

And of course, in a few hundred thousand years, the dead subs get subducted and end up buried deep inside the planet.

* Anchor a steel cable to the bottom destination using lots of weight, with the other end at your tow/carrier ship. Run it through a hoop welded to the sub's dorsal area. Scuttle stem-heavy, having removed the diving planes for scrap, and let it down slowly to the exact resting place you want. Conceivably you could use cabling like this to ensure a really soft landing, even.

Microsoft's corporate veep for enterprise puts the boot into boot times

Milton

Time for the life support question again

Time for the life support question again ... which may be asked of any Microsfot employee, but is best aimed at an executive or a particularly enthusiastic Windows marketurd:

"You are in hospital following a grievous accident or illness. There are two computers here. You'll get one of them. Only one of these computers, managing this amazing festoon of medical equipment around and inside you, will keep you alive for the next three months. The hardware and the medical software is excellent, but if the computer fails for any reason, and cannot be restarted to full functionality in a maximum of three or four minutes, you will slowly suffocate and die. So: would you prefer the one with Windows, or the one with the Linux operating system? Take your time answering ... the guy in the next bed gets the other one."

My wild-ass guess is that not a single Microsoft employee, nor anyone else with decent experience of both OSs would choose the Windows machine. Not where their life is at stake.

Well, would you?

Oracle swings axe on cloud infrastructure corps amid possible bloodbath at Big Red

Milton

The entrapment model

The entrapment model of doing business got a huge lift from 'cloud'. By persuading customers—G³ executives*, for the most part—that they could sack lots of expensive skilled people and rake in the savings as their IT systems morphed into magical excellence in the 'cloud', grazing peacefully alongside unicorns, the big providers extended the 'ecosystem' approach they had previously been using to entrap the public, and managed to imprison many large enterprises on their systems, with data and process held hostage by largely unnecessary proprietary dependencies and the fact that those enterprises no longer had the skills to fend for themselves (it's the PUNJI† business model). Prices rise; performance falls; and the G³ types do what they always do: polish up the CV and stay one step ahead of their last disaster.

The surprise is that Oracle weren't better at this, sooner. Once, they had a world-beating RDBMS. (Yes, I remember the days when Oracle had an actually good product that was actually, if you were an enterprise, worth the money.) Then it became just another very expensive RDBMS, increasingly barnacled with poorly integrated bought/borrowed/copied applications and suites. Now it is a horrible jungle of eywateringly expensive processes and data, encrusted with crap, barely able to float, clumsy, inefficient, riddled with duplication, overlap and blind spots, with vast swamps of marketing bullshit stinking the place up. For at least 15 years Oracle has been all about squeezing hapless victims who can't escape, often forcing shabby and shoddily-integrated rubbish upon them, while desperately seeking any remaining G³ naifs still clueless enough to look their salesgorgons in the eye. You'd have thought that 'cloud' was absolutely made for a slowly dying behemoth like Oracle, fitting directly into its own PUNJI model.

So I would suggest it speaks to a very special level of strategic incompetence that Oracle were so slow to embrace an entirely new method of entrapping customers into paying through the nose for rubbish they didn't need. Most unlike them. (The probable explanation is the steady trickle-down of Ellison's self-destructive arrogance, which has been poisoning the Oracle water for a very long time..)

Anyway, it's good that Oracle's cloud is failing. Pretty much anything that hastens the demise of this pathology of a business is to be welcomed.

* Greedy Gullible Gobshytes

† PUNJI :: Patently Unwitting Nincompoops Jump In. Note this is distinct from the outsourcers' approach, whereby they infiltrate clients until the latter become no more than life support mechanisms for the outsourcers they thought would help them save money (In MBA jargon, the TAPEWORM‡ model).

‡ TAPEWORM :: Targeted At Parasitising Enterprises With Outsourcers' Revenue Maximisation

6 days to go, no sweat, just more than a million UK firms still to sign up to Making Tax Digital

Milton

Just imagine ...

Just imagine ... if they put this level of misdirected effort, half-informed technical blundering, carelessness, lack of forethought and outright incompetence into pursuing the really big companies to pay their fair share of tax.

I really must remember to save up a few thousand so that I can wine and dine my tax officials properly, and ensure that, because my affairs are huge, complex and international, we can have a Gentlemen's Agreement about what I should pay: on a handshake over a glass of wine.

HPE lawyers claim Autonomy chief Lynch knew all about 'revenue-pumping' carousel

Milton

"fixation on quarterly performance"

"But a curse of modern times, especially in the US where there's the fixation on quarterly performance rather than longer term, sustainable growth."

The UK has its share of this stupidity, too. (Though perhaps, given that sentiment and greed plays such a part, it is rational if your only interest is to score some cash and run before the house falls down).

Before and during the bursting of the late 90s bubble, I was (for once) in a salaried post in the City working for a systems integrator and watched with fascination as its board (I was one step below, and of course ignored as soon as I started offering warnings), fixated on a mythical IPO, began bullying clients for payments (relationships rapidly ruined), slashing recruitment and training budgets (staff performance declined), pushing managers to bill hours (so they couldn't 'manage' any more) and cutting any unbillable time devoted to admin, team-building, professional development, etc etc. I vividly recall a very expensive performance & strategy away-weekend where I presented on how my department was realistically, actually going to perform for the next six months, given our pipeline, staffing, skills, training requirements and the exigencies of competent project work, and being met with blank stares since all others had offered a rosy picture of steadily increasing quarter-by-quarter revenues ... exactly what the board had to believe ("because that's what the analysts need to see")

You can fill in the remaining several months yourselves. Personally I'd have sooner forgotten IPO, kept the team, built up for the long term and grown organically. Instead the company was basically destroyed by its founders' obsession with the short term. Its very name has vanished. (No, I didn't refuse a fat payout, but things could have been so much better for everyone.) All in all it was a fascinating experience watching as the poisoned Kool-Aid spread its effect among previously quite sensible, rational people.

(The return to contracting/consulting, where I can stay outside of toxic management fads, avoid career structures infested with self-serving halfwits and, best of all, turn my back on office politicians, has become permanent. The coprorate world, I have sadly concluded, is full of greedy, lazy idiots.)

Not much actual analysis involved, then, is there?

Brit broadband giants slammed as folk whinge about crap connections, underwhelming speeds

Milton

Recommend the best

These days I work from home so we have two broadband connections and a necessary if expensive Draytek¹* load-balancing/failover router. Downtime is simply not an option, and our household consumes Amazon and Netflix and my teenaged boy is a heavy gamer, so oodles of robust bandwidth is very nice to have. Contrary to my expectations, Sky broadband has been much more reliable than Virgin Media. With problems again this weekend, and tiresome hours spent listengin to someone with an impenetrable indian accent drool over a checklist he clearly doesn't understand—tell 'em a dozen times that yes, you've already done all that, including trying a separate, compatible router they themselves supplied, and they don't even understand you.

So my question is an easy one: which provider would you, the assembled, experienced and wise Reg readers, recommend to me? I need an outfit that provides high bandwidth and the option either to fit my own router or at least switch theirs into Modem Mode.

Any consensus?

¹* Is Draytek the only company on the planet that makes SOHO internet equipment of decent quality? Because I long, long ago got fed up with the "breaks after 2/3 years" level of the rest of them ....

Facebook's at it again: Internal emails show it knew about Cambridge Analytica abuse 'months' before news broke

Milton

New evidence for the Stupid Epidemic

In the past when I have caustically remarked upon the amazing stupidity of such a large proportion of the population—I'd guess at least one-third—I have been, reasonably enough, accused of intolerant, intellectual arrogance. After a while, my answer became: "Go drive around on Britain's roads for a couple of hours, in town and including some motorway miles, observing carefully, and then come back and tell me I am wrong." In truth I don't know if anyone ectually went and did this, but the point, often enough, was conceded: we are surrounded by a heck of a lot of outright fools and idiots.

I think I can update this for the modern era. "Facebook is a company of almost unhinged avarice and amorality, with a reputation for pathological lies and law-breaking, misuse and abuse of data, a breeding ground for extremism and hatred, facilitator of treasonous interference in western democracy by its repressive nation-state enemies, a medium infested by propaganda and misinformation, which offers you a 'free' service and then proceeds to rape your privacy, turns you into a commodity and sells you, for monetisation and manipulation, to the highest bidder. People who have every reason to be aware of this nevertheless continue to use Facebook. So go ahead and tell me again that a large proportion of the population are not clueless imbeciles."

(In truth, it is an even more universal argument for the sheer stupidity of people than watching the nation that once managed the largest empire ever seen on Earth commit deliberate economic suicide in the most flounderingly incompetent farrago of childlike idiocy I have ever witnessed.)

Whether it's pollution and/or social media or just the much-hypothesised Stupid Ray beamed at our planet by aliens: something in the last 20—30 years seems to have turned half of humanity into raging cretins.

Altered carbon: Boffins automate DNA storage with decent density – but lousy latency

Milton

Sounds bit 'pure science'

I don't want to diss efforts like this—there's always something to be learned, and I am not a biologist—but: is this ever going to be a practical route to high-density data storage? There is so much work going on with silicon-based, plasmonic, photonic and holographic approaches, many of them offshoots of developing nanotech ideas, that it's arguably likely that we'll eventually be able to read/write data at the molecular scale anyway. It may well be a failure of the imagination on my part, but while I think humanity may do some remarkable things with DNA (both wonderful and horrible, almost certainly), routinely stuffing petabytes of data into a vial of the stuff for ve-e-ery slo-o-ow retrieval just doesn't seem that likely. Perhaps it'll be a niche product for spies and smugglers?

(Didn't Friday have a special pouch concealed behind her navel ...?)

Q&A: Crypto-guru Bruce Schneier on teaching tech to lawmakers, plus privacy failures – and a call to techies to act

Milton

The implicit message

What appears implicit in Mr Schneier's argument is that—

1. Politicians are clueless and largely unwilling to make decisions on an ethical basis

2. The employees of large enterprises are far more likely to make or support ethical decisions than their management and executives.

Both of these things are obviously true, as history has demonstrated for basically ever and as can be seen proven again today with a cursory glance at the Conservative and Republican idiocracies in the UK and US respectively, imbecile triumph-of-the-juvenile phenomena like Brexit and Trump, and the disgusting behaviour of Facebook, Volkswagen, Google and most of Big Pharma to name but a few.

So not a surprise but a source for despair, that we start yet another discussion on how to govern our own species with the unchallenged, almost unremarked assumption that its most powerful and wealthy groups, and its leadership, are comprised of so many greedy, shameless, hypocritical, dishonest—and in the particular case of the politicians, stupid and ignorant—well, for want of a better word, scum.

The eternal tragedy of humanity and why, very possibly, it is doomed.

"Those who crave power should never be allowed to wield it."

Facebook blames 'server config change' for 14-hour outage. Someone run that through the universal liar translator

Milton

The Facebook Experiment, aka 'Project DF'

The Facebook Experiment is one of those ultra top secrets that hides in plain sight. It actually began years ago, with Zuckerberg's notable observation that Facebook users were "dumb fucks". Since then the hidden-yet-obvious programme, internally known to a select few as 'Project DF', has continued as a kind of psychological experiment-cum-profit-making enterprise.

Its purpose: to see just how much contempt and disrespect for its users and civilised society in general the company can demonstrate while the DFs continue to drool fecklessly over use the platform.

Those in the know once had a cruise-ship-style sweepstake going as to how badly the company could behave before being punished, but since even the High Range was long since exhausted, the money has been returned to bettors. It transpires that DFs are also heavily represented among US and UK politicians, giving the company free rein for ever more atrocious behaviour.

Notable because Zuckerberg was, on that occasion, being truthful.

Buyer's Remorse followed the purchase of a failed, widely reviled UK politician, and the company has been able to shut its slush lobbying fund. The decision was made at a meeting where the CFO's point that "We only need to bribe the intelligent ones" was greeted with awed silence.

Following 'stellar' flat sales growth, operating profit dip, Oracle says it has 1,000 Autonomous Database customers

Milton

Hidden beef

"... what are they hiding?"

Fair question, since no one with a scrap of intelligence would trust Oracle or its minions. I suspect the answer is another question: Why would any rational customer, having evaluated all cloud options available to them, and considering all parameters of cost, functionality and security, choose to buy Oracle? Seriously—for what possible reason would you actually choose Oracle?

For a very long time now, it has seemed to me that "new" Oracle business comes mostly from existing victi- customers, who simply cannot escape. Oracle has added a plethora of variously half-decent or crummy systems to its core offerings, usually poorly integrated and clunkily Frankensteined together, to the point where the one thing it was doing well 25 years ago (its RDBMS) is obscured behind a barnacly encrustation of pie charts and marketing nonsense that only a third-rate MBA could love. It's not so much an ecosystem as a swamp—where the only dry areas are dotted with punji pits. I defy any rational business not already parasitised by Oracle to choose to go there. And let's face it, if the unappetising, inflexible mess of its offerings were not sufficient deterrent, its corporate attitude of arrogance and entitlement, coupled with traditionally unsavoury marketing, sales and pricing practice would surely send you fleeing?

My guess is that it takes a lot of smoke and mirrors to obscure the fact that Oracle survives, for now, by squeezing existing customers and sucking them into more pasted-on crap; that a forensic examination would show how very, very little genuinely new business, in the shape of actual new clients, is coming through the door.

Of course, it is fortunate for companies like Oracle and its saleslizards that a veritable multitude of third-rate MBAs are constantly spaffed out of colleges like wasps on a hot summer morning—eager, and entirely clueless.

Overhyped 5G is being 'rushed', Britain's top comms boffin reckons

Milton

Marketing BS >>> Technological Reality

As we've noted with one US provider (AT&T) already using outright lies to pretend it is providing 5G connectivity to gullible consumers, the marketing bullshit for this is going to stay far, far ahead of the technical realities.

Let's not forget that 5G requires a vast number of (relatively small) antennae to work, because these have to be close to the device (no more than hundreds of metres distant) in order to connect, so the chances of ever using 5G outside a city or some kind of serious population density will remain essentially zero. The atmospheric attenuation of mm-wave signal is bad enough, but the signals are not going to be able to get through the walls of buildings, so even with a multitude of aerials and beamforming, you're highly likely to find larger buildings, or those blocked by others, remaining as eternal black spots. Users will find that the precise location and even orientation of their device—even the position of thier own bodies—makes wild differences to bandwidth availability.

The fact that it will only be practical in cities (already mostly wired) leads many to suggest automotive applications as the key use case, but if you actually need low-latency high-bandwidth connectivity while driving—which is more an article of faith than a proven fact—how will you cope if the signal drops out for a few seconds every time you pass a big building, a construction site, a warehouse, a train, or even as you take the time to pass a large truck?

It's amusing to note that some practical 5G deployments would install antennae with greater density than was needed for the failed early-90s Rabbit mobile phone system, widely mocked for requiring a base station on every block.

5G has every appearance of technology being invented and deployed because it can be, not because there is a strong need for what it can do. How many people really need gaming-level bandwidth while out and about: especially given it will crash every time the train passes anything that blocks what is, after all, close to being a line-of-sight signal?

If 5G instead promised simply to extend mobile reach, which would be a huge deal in the USA, finally bringing adequate if unspectacular connectivity to vast rural areas, it would make a lot more sense. But of course, in the boondocks is where it is supremely useless.

In sum and IMHO, I am more interested in ideas to broaden connectivity, for example using satellite constellations, than simply making it a bit faster for folks who are actually already quite well served.

AT&T's lies notwithstanding, they might actually be ahead of the game: true and useful 5G is going to remain as bullshit fodder for marketurds, and for a long time yet.

UK joins growing list of territories to ban Boeing 737 Max flights as firm says patch incoming

Milton

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I understand that Boeing and the FAA, eyeing the potential economic and reputational fallout from a grounding, are staking a position on the lack of immediate evidence that Ethiopian 302 went down for the same reason as Lion 610, and further that the loss of Lion 610 might well have been avoided if the pilots had turned off the anti-stall setting that may, given bad data by a defective AoA sensor, have been at the root of the problem.

A Boeing executive might well honestly say:

"A. Lion 610 wouldn't have crashed if the pilots had been more aware of how to correct the situation (which they should have been, from reports of prior incidents, for that very aircraft, which were sucessfully resolved); B. we simply don't know yet what caused Ethiopian 302 to crash; and C. even if it was the same scenario, we must again point out that pilots had no excuse not to know how to rectify the problem."

I think you really cannot blame an executive for that line of reasoning.

But.

But, a Boeing engineer might have some rather different thoughts, like:

"Yeah, both sets of pilots should have known what to do in the case of the anti-stall system being erroneously activated. Both sets of pilots already had a body of prior events and reports to work from. Lion 610's pilots should have known about what had already occurred on previous flights with their very own airframe. Ethiopian 302's pilots cannot conceivably have been unaware of Lion 610. So what if there is more to this than we're assuming? What if, while we're obsessing about bad AoA data setting off our (nice, shiny, new) anti-stall software, there is another, much more subtle, much less easily fixed problem which occurs very infrequently, perhaps with almost random intermittency? Doesn't this, in fact, stink like a catch of week-old haddock left in the noonday sun?"

My guess is that executives will make the basically bad decision to keep the plane flying, not out of greed or even stupidity, but because they follow their own logic. Which, to a non-engineer brain, makes sense.

Whereas engineer brains are preprogrammed with laws like Murphy's, and that one about Unintended Consequences, and in particular the one that correlates systems complexity with not only increased numbers of points of failure, but to the ever-increasing difficulty of finding, replicating, diagnosing and fixing the rare and subtle ones. (Look how long it took to finally figure out the phenomenally rare combination of factors involved the B737 rudder hardover failures that brought down UA 585, USAir 427, and nearly killed Eastwind 517. This was an entirely mechanical problem in a single power control unit, occasioned when a specific sequence of flight events brought very hot hydraulic fluid into a very cold servo system. Nowhere near as complex as a million lines of code, but from the first deadly accident to a final finding by NTSB was eight years. (The fact that this too was B737 is purely coincidental.))

It's difficult enough to prove that 1,000 lines of code are error-free, let alone the millions that can make up aircraft OS and flight systems programs. (And let's not overlook the fact that this airframe has some significant changes from the NG series that preceded it. The positioning of the engines—further forward and higher, to accommodate larger fan diameters—has made big differences to CG and trim; the winglets are new; and even changing the nose gear system alters an aircraft's inflight CG and trim needs. Fuel figures suggest the 737MAX flies beautifully trimmed ... but all these things are changes which do affect the way software performs and makes decisions.)

On balance, I suspect experienced engineers would be a leetle bit more inclined to ground the 737MAX fleet, right now, than their bosses in the e-suite.

While this CEO may be stiff, his customers are rather stuffed: Quadriga wallets finally cracked open – nothing inside

Milton

What a tangled web

El Reg treads the lines carefully—

Since Cotten's reported death, at the age of 30 while traveling in India ... ... According to a death certificate, Cotten died while traveling through Jaipur ...

—but is obviously noticing a stench resembling that of half a ton of dead fish rotting in the Jaipur sun.

I'm reminded of Rabbie Burns: "Ah what a tangled web we weave / when we seek to deceive"

We can't all be D.B.Cooper, and he at least had the sense to 'spend' some of his ill-gotten gains by chucking them in a ravine to stir the possibility that he hadn't survived his parachute drop. If perchance this is a larcenous enterprise, it might have been better not to make that 3 December transaction, which may prove a fatal undoing ....

Google finally touts $150 pint-sized Linux dev board with Edge TPU AI math copro brains

Milton

Duplex deposits

More and more places require a deposit for bookings, because so many are made and then folks don't turn up. The habit of booking multiple 'options' and ditching them at short notice is parasitic and noxious, and this was always going to happen.

So will restaurateurs trust Duplex? Especially if they know it's a Google product? How will it negotiate deposits? Will a deposit paid by duplex be honoured? Refunded? Disavowed? Many English speakers seem to have difficulty with foreign accented-English (even when spoken, as is sometimes the case, by people with a better vocabulary and grammar than their English interlocutors)—especxially Indian, for some reasons—so will Duplex do any better, when negotiating a slightly later booking with the Taj Mahal for Friday evening?

And when we've got past those problems, how long before malware, spyware and all the other "dark fuckery of the human heart" kicks in? When the TM says they'll keep the three deposits committed to by Duplex because it's not their fault if your rogue/contaminated/abused system made bookings in your name? Or blocks you for nuisance bookings that you keep not turning up to? Or insists that you're not getting the seven o'clock table you thought you'd booked, because Rashinder and Duplex agreed to eleven o'clock instead? Or you get irritated calls from 17 different places asking what the hell is going on, because someone pranked your infected system and made a shedload of random bookings for you? Whenl your Significant Other queries a romantic dinner for two that she wasn't invited to, will you earnestly explain that Google must have gone rogue and made the booking for you? Duplex as alibi?

The failure and chaos modes are numerous. No one thought email would be a harbinger of so much wasted time and chaos 30 years ago, but look where we got to. And email is actually useful, unlike a system designed for people too paralytically lazy to pick up a phone or visit a website. If normal use doesn't create major problems, you may be certain that once the vandals and Black Hats get involved, you're in for a wild ride. And that doesn't even address the idiocy of giving the laughably named Don't Be Evil with yet another invasion-of-privacy vector ...

Nod to Stephen King

ReactOS 0.4.11 makes great strides towards running Windows apps without the Windows

Milton

Win7

I've muttered bad-temperedly here before about finally ditching Windows when W7 support dries up, since it has been, IMHO, the best OS from MS. The later spyware versions will have no place on any personal system that i use (sadly, I may yet have to keep a laptop, infected with W10 rescued from the kill shelter, for working with clients). But, as I've also said before, I like some software that regettably is not ported/portable to *ix. I will cross-train to Gimp if I must, but Paint.net is just so damn nice to use! I am utterly familiar with the W7 UI, which is excellent for multi-large-monitor non-touch desktop use. Heck, behind a solid firewall and AV, it just works, year after dependable year.

The short version is: like many others, I'd actually pay money for a desktop OS that would run Windows applications without spying on me or trying to lead me into the punji-trap of subscriptions. Give me an OS equivalent in performance and functionality to W7Ultimate—with no upgrades, ever—just doing what it says on the tin, solid properly-tested security updates maybe monthly as necessary, and I'd pay a solid wedge for it and a few quid a year for the security fixes. (Oh, and It will need to support VMs. Various Linuxes hang around these parts, too.)

And since this is almost certainly a pipe dream, I guess that in a year or so, I'll be typing from a Linux desktop, and Gimping ....

FBI boss: Never mind Russia and social media, China ransacks US biz for blueprints, secrets at 'surprisingly' huge scale

Milton

Russia shouts; China whispers

Russia makes a lot of noise because it is actually quite weak. Its economy is in bad shape, not least because it's a kleptocracy crippled by the wholesale theft of assets by KGB thugs and their fellow criminals after the fall of the wall, and also because it spends proportionately far too much on weaponry, plus it is badly affected by western sanctions imposed for serious criminality. (For one thing, nerve agent attacks on foreign soil are far beyond acceptable behaviour.) Plus little Vlad The Emailer, riding the tiger, knows that when he falls or is pushed off he won't survive a day, is therefore desperate to maintain his position, which he thinks he can do by childish shirtless stunts and lots of chest-beating. Russia shouts because it is just not that powerful.

China, on the other hand, quietly builds upon its enormous economic strength. Although Xi has made some bad mistakes in accelerating his military adventurism, on the whole China continues to whisper and do diplomacy while becoming stronger every day. NSA and GCHQ and the other Five Eyes operators have been so busy spying on my browsing habits—are you bored to death yet?—that they have, in their largely pointless attempts at active espionage, scandalously neglected the 'counter-' part of their mission. While Five Eyes were eavesdropping on the cellphones of allied leaders, Russia conspired with the мокрые дела Candidate to secure the US Presidency, China stole the entire F-35 dataset from Lockheed and little Vlad, fresh from invading the Crimea, got a head start in buggering up Europe (with, admittedly, ample help from the British Conservatives' circus of Useful Idiots).

It worries me to agree with that loathsome ambulatory compost heap, Steve Bannon, about anything: but he is almost certainly correct that unless China changes its ways, which includes the seemingly impossible feat of regime change and a move to democracy, sooner or later it will have to be cut down to size.

Russia, ultimately, cannot win because its economy is a kleptocracy and a ruinously badly managed mess besides. China, ultimately, cannot lose because its economy is colossal and growing. Unless we actually want its murderous, repressive regime to enslave the world in a new Dark Ages, China must be stopped. If regime change through trade pressure doesn't work—and there's no sign of it, especially under this hopelessly incompetent White House—the answer will ultimately be military.

The consequences of war with China in the next five years are horrifying. The consequences of waiting ten or 20 years are much, much worse. And the consequences of doing nothing at all are the extinction of human freedom: everywhere.

Milton

3.1415926535897932384626433..

"There may well be a way to combine strong encryption and lawful intercepts he said, if people are willing to put their heads together."

In the late Victorian era an assumption began to be widely credited and shared, that future leaders would be drawn from among scientists. After all, they are the smartest people, they're trained to establish evidence-based facts, to apply logic and rationality in understanding cause and effect, and are demonstrably the best problem-solvers our species can offer. Plus, they tend to be, if not apolitical, at least aware that cold hard objective fact trumps wishful thinking and political bullshit every single time. You can vote to make π = 3.000 as many time as you like and π won't change for you.

Unfortunately for the human race, scientists recoil with disgust from politics, especially from the early 21st-century strains of politician which have evolved like particularly noxious spirochaetes: there is nothing to like, admire or emulate in creatures which now embody the worst of human vices—people who appear almost to revel in their cowaridce, hypocrisy, mendacity and wilful ignorance. Just look at the bloviating liars and spineless lice busy destroying Britain, or the US GOP, unable to bend over backwards far enough in its invertebrate deceit to protect the worst human being ever to soil the White House. So low has western politics sunk—and no, I haven't much good to report about the state of the "left" either, which also seems largely bought and paid for by corporate money.

So the Christopher Wray, and his wish to "... combine strong encryption and lawful intercepts ... if people are willing to put their heads together"—because despite all the soothing words, he shows that he simply does not get it. And presumably, lacking a math degree, he never will. The politicians who appointed him are not scientists, do not even resemble scientists—indeed, in many respects are the complete opposite of objective seekers-after-truth—so they are neither willing nor capable of comprehension of this issue. We are "led" by ignorant fools, who, even when they employ less ignorant and less foolish people, control their budgets, goals, procedures and to large extent, public statements.

So Mr Wray ultimately comes back to spouting dumb, impossible stuff. He has to say he wants π to be 3.000, but no matter how many "people are willing to put their heads together", it'll continue obstinately and forever to remain an objective unchanged fact.

Even if every public cryptosystem were crippled with a backdoor which miraculously remained a secret, the real villains will simply use an uncrippled one. The options are almost limitless, and the use of advanced steganography in a world where 2,000,000,000 data-heavy images are shared every day, makes reading or even finding competently-encrypted messages an utterly futile effort.

If you want to spy on the innocent, or the lame-arsed, trivial, incompetent small fry, you may find some meagre success for the trillions of dollars you spend. But the real Black Hats' conversations will remain forever secure. π still won't be 3.000.

Alphabet snoop: If you're OK with Google-spawned Chronicle, hold on, hold on, dipping into your intranet traffic, wait, wait

Milton

Spiffing Wheeze

So, large parts of the world are awash with bad actors stealing data, from nation states downloading terabyte data sets for Lockheed's F-35, through Fancy Bear lice working for ex-KGB scumbags, all the way to the FOAB in Bumphuk, New Jersey.

The remainder of the planet is fighting a batle against corporate executives at Facebook and Google—morally indistinguishable from Vlad The Emailer's rind of scuzz—who have by this point become nothing better than serial liars and thieves of personal data.

Against this background of law-of-the-jungle theft and lies—condoned and perpetuated by the inaction of politicians long since bought and paid for by the internet giants' lobbyists—a business whose continued existence may well depend upon the confidentiality of its IP and operating data, is going to send all of its comms data to the worst offender of all, as a security measure?

It's just more evidence, as if were it needed, for the theory that air pollution is destroying humanity's IQ levels; or that the aliens shone a Stupidity Ray through planet Earth sometime in the late 1990s and have been watching and giggling ever since.

A story worthy of April 1st.

.

FOAB: "Fatty On a Bed"—the Orange Cretin's fantasy of a hacker, "Fat guy sitting on a bed somewhere" ... if FOAB was gagging down his third Big Mac while watching Fox&F***tards, I think he got the idea from the Presidential Mirror.

SPOILER alert, literally: Intel CPUs afflicted with simple data-spewing spec-exec vulnerability

Milton

Well I never ...

I bought my last CPU purely on bang-per-buck criteria, needing then (4/5 yrs ago), for a client, to model parallel molecular simulations which we would later scale to Big Server installations (eventually discovering—to the great surprise of no one now—that the CPU was better used to orchestrate the heavy lifting done in GPUs) but that machine remains on my desktop with its water-cooled beast of an AMD chip, still rocketing along. I'm aware that AMD architecture is not immune from all Spectre-type attacks, but it seems to be less vulnerable overall: a pleasant little extra, I guess, from a CPU which has provided bulletproof high performance for so long now (fingers crossed). Cannot claim any clever foresight, though.

When 2FA means sweet FA privacy: Facebook admits it slurps mobe numbers for more than just profile security

Milton

Proposing the New Interactive Model

Internet ads have a feature that previous types didn't.

Paper, radio and TV ads all required you to remember something, to be latently influenced. The effect was either subtle—subconscious reinforcement of brand awareness, more readily noticing 'Acme Inc' next time you saw the name—or direct, making you want to go and buy the great new product which the ad was selling. But you were rarely in a position to act immediately; to show an instant response.

The net is different, since you can click the link and buy the product—or: you can demonstrate your response by some other method.

So I propose that from now on, internet advertising is regulated to ensure that as well as being able to click on the 'Buy Now' or 'See More' link, there is also one labelled 'FOAD'. The law will require that the ad displays the number of FOAD clicks when it is shown, but, more importantly, the company in question is charged 1p/1¢ in extra taxation for each occurrence. The money raised will go directly into a national special educational fund, to be spent exclusively on improvements to schools, learning materials, teachers' and lecturers' salaries.

We'd need to solve the problem of robots, of course, but that aside you now have an excellent and effective way of making sure that internet advertising has to seriously improve.

Do you know why TV ads during Superbowl are of vastly better quality than the witless drivel vomited out by commercial radio? Because the former is expensive, of course. Radio ads are cheap as chips, which is why they are simply awful. Internet ads are even cheaper, which is why they occupy the very bottom of the quality sewer.

So now we are using the interactivity of the internet to ensure that bad ads are punished, that advertising generally becomes more expensive so you'll start to see better ones, and money incidentally generated by bad ones goes towards a critically important cause: education. Crappy advertisers go out of business. You see better ads.

All you have to do is press the 'Fsck Off And Die' button ...

.

Radio: Embarrassingly poor fake-Scandi accent drones on for 30 seconds about yet another dreary car, telling you how little it will cost; followed by a hasty babble with the usual rhyme "Terms and conditions apply, all the above was a lie" as someone else explains the real cost is twice as much. Does this transparently deceitful garbage work on anyone?

Customer: We fancy changing a 25-year-old installation. C'mon, it's just one extra valve... Only wafer thin...

Milton

FrAgile

"Quicker, cheaper, delivering in increments that may well have imperfections, and only if it's a small project of carefully scoped goals using your very best, experienced people given prompt access to resources and users ..."

... but the beancounters and clueless MBAs who infest the industry like guinea worms only hear the first two words.

It's not your imagination: Ticket scalper bots are flooding the internet according this 'ere study

Milton

Too easy to fix

Enforcing strong CAPTCHA and allowing only modern browsers solves the major part of the problem. The vendors could easily and cheaply do this. If they're not doing it, it's because they don't want to. If they don't want to, it's because they're greedy bastards who don't care who gets hurt.

So, fsck 'em. Regulation will require all sellers of vulnerable items to implement a certain antibot standard and that's it.

We insist that medicines, for example, must have a package insert listing ingredients, side effects, interactions etc, for public health and safety. Why imagine that internet based goods and services should be given immunity?

Once again that phrase comes to mind: "The retarded intellectual metabolism of government".

Correction: Last month, we called Zuckerberg a moron. We apologize. In fact, he and Facebook are a fscking disgrace

Milton

Dumb fscks?

One of the few times Zuckerberg has been honest was when he said he considered Facebook users to be "dumb fscks" (using Regspeak here). He might have added that Facebook's leadership are "avaricious, amoral, lying csnts".

Another way to look at Amazon's counterfeit-busting Project Zero: Making merchants cough up protection money

Milton

Lack of accountability and sanction

It would be onerous and expensive for outfits like ebay and Amazon to have to take responsibility and suffer fines for selling counterfeit goods. Their prices would have to rise. Or profits would fall.

It would be expensive for Amazon to have to pay their warehouse and delivery folks a decent wage. Their prices would have to rise. Or profits would fall.

It would be a burden for Amazon to have to pay proper taxes in the countries they sell from, through, and to. Their prices would have to rise. Or profits would fall.

It would cost Amazon more if they were to pay a fair royalty to owners of copyrighted stuff sold on their site. There prices would have to rise. Or profits would fall.

Perhaps Amazon doesn't in any way deserve to take advantage of the sloppiness of a badly regulated inernet?

Perhaps Amazon should have to compete on a more level playing field with other retailers, including B&M?

Perhaps it would not be a bad thing if employees were paid decently, so that they didn't have to rely upon social welfare, which itself would benefit from extra taxes, and other retailers had a fairer chance to compete, and authors and songwriters and singers too were properly rewarded for thier work without their earnings being parasitised?

Perhaps the truth is that governments are the villains here, for having utterly, often corruptly failed to properly regulate and sanction internet giants, from Amazon to Facebook to Google?

The problems of social media and predatory Amazons and eBays are all solvable: you just need to elect people to do it. (Hint: not the solid majority of lazy, dumb, greedy crap currently infesting Westminster while f**king up every single thing they touch ...)

I say, that sucks! Crooks are harnessing hoovers to clean out parking meters in Chelsea

Milton

"funding further criminality"

'We also now know from local police that this is funding further criminality in London, from drugs and trafficking to possibly violent crime," Pascall added.'

And many of us remember the frothing propaganda about video piracy, telling us that copying a tape supported terrorists and international criminals and intercontinental drugs gangs and child traffickers and black market arms dealers (and, who knows, even to the worst of the worst, the Catholic Church?) ... it's funny how no one ever said, "Yeah, some pikies are knocking out tapes in Wolverhampton and buying new caravans".

These hysterical warnings of all the hellish evils being funded by pound coins sucked from council meters are sooo yesterday, not to mention silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, because when you begin this kind of hype, people don't even trust you when you do speak facts.

Brave claims its mobe browser batt use bests whatever you're using. Why? Hint: It begins with A then D then V...

Milton

Never looked back: yet

Got fed up with Firefox on Android (appallingly slow) and switched to Brave about six months ago. It is so much better I've never even considered switching again.

But as someone else said, the last para about Brave plotting its own ad model is very discouraging.

How difficult would it be for Brave simply to offer its browser app for 99p a year, with annual upgrades and interim security fixes as what you get for the money? Heck, I'd probably pay up to £5 a year for a good, fast, ad-free mobile browser. (And yes, I'd pay for Vivaldi on my desktop, too, if it ditched ads as well as Brave does. Again, it makes Firefox look like a dinosaur, especially since last year's nasty 'upgrade' to the Firefox UI.)

But do NOT start manuring my eyeballs with ads again. They are utter shit. They don't work. They're not good or amusing to look at or listen to. They just waste my time, my reading space and my battery.

Be honest, and charge for the software, or please, just get lost.

Foldables herald the beginning of the end of the smartphone fetish

Milton

No, not really

1. No one is being asked to 'crowdfund' development. The first cars, gramophones, transistor radios, VCRs all cost a bleedin fortune and there weren't many who could afford them. But they sold, and became numerous, and economies of production scale and competition kicked in, and one day everybody had one. That the first foldyfones cost a lot is not remotely new or surprising, and it's not part of any new business model, and it doesn't need daft references to crowdfunding thrown in. There's nothing new about this approach: indeed, it's the only one available.

2. Fancy gadgets will continue to be 'fetishised' because they always have been. Again, look at the examples above. There was a time when you boasted about having a cassette recorder. (For some reason I still have my Sony TC-55, c.1976, then billed as the world's smallest cassette recorder. Weird.) Modern phones are no different from previous and future human practice, they are just more visibly ubiquitous. People will soon be considering, as they always have, according to their credit rating, whether to buy the cheaper, plainer version, the mainstream workhorse or the fancy, glossy, super-expensive status symbol. They did it with cars and TVs and will do it with foldyfones in due course.

The phone industry has languished in a severe lack of innovation ever since every lemming on Earth deicded to copy Apple's all-screen candybar. It is good to some true innovation return. But the innovation is in the form factor and engineering, not in anything else. The business model, pricing and marketing will all follow a time-honoured route established since the Model T. Hyping about the end of 'fetishisation', or imagining that a new design presages some game-changing business model completely misses the point. Perhaps the author of the article is very, very young?

Secret mic in Nest gear wasn't supposed to be a secret, says Google, we just forgot to tell anyone

Milton

Liars

Google kept the mic secret because they knew perfectly well that the first questions would be (a) why is that in there? and (b) how do I ensure it is switched off, in hardware?—and I'm guessing that there is no way to switch off it in hardware, so you'll just have to trust Google (cue: hysterical laughter).

Given "Don't Be Evil's" long history of lying, at least as far back as the StreetView espionage campaign, it's fair to assume they are lying again now.

I'd be interested to see if any purchasers will now sue and demand a refund, especially if there is no easy way to ensure the mic is off or removed?

It's one thing for me to heap scorn upon fools who deliberately introduce mic- and camera-equipped devices into their homes (especially if they're naïve enough to believe manufacturers, whose entire raison d'être is spying on people, claiming foolproof privacy and anonymity guarantees) but it seems appalling, even by Google's squalid "ethics", to fit microphones to equipment secretly. (Yes, secretly: if they wanted to claim it wasn't done with deliberate malign intent, they'd have had to notify purchasers in the first place. All else is just more lies and excuses.)

Milton

"... talks to Google's servers over the internet ..."

"The £99 Nest home alarm talks to Google's servers over the internet, offering home monitoring and alert functions."

We might also note that there is no reason whatsoever for any of these devices to "talk to Google's servers". It is perfectly possible to have a properly firewalled connection outbound from your home router and (if necessary) a dynamic DNS setup that allows you to connect directly to a web server hosted on the device itself. It is trivially easy to put up a few web pages displaying controls and stats for one of these devices: even a £10 RPiZ can do it with room and power to spare (I use one to control my otherwise temperamental combi boiler, which was surprised to find itself adapted as an Internet Thing).

Just as there is no reason for your immensely powerful phone to connect to backend servers to perform speech recognition, so it is that the connection of your Nest to Google is entirely for Google's benefit and very definitely not yours.

This is a company which makes obscene money by spying on you, and then selling you. Your life is sold and makes hundreds of dollars for Google (and Facebook and the rest of the sleazy greedmongers), and in return you get ... a few cents' worth of searches from the former, and pictures of other people's crummy dinners from the other.

When Zuckerberg described Facebook users as "dumb fucks" he was neatly summing up the massed herds of bovine internet addicts who would, it seems, buy alligator puppies—if they were shiny, or let you lie about what a great tropical vacation you had ....

Veterans of East Germany's Stasi must be crying with laughter, watching fat western idiots pay money to put cameras and microophones into their own homes, even after being shown that those devices report back to the least trustworthy, most deceitful companies on the planet. "Dumb fucks" indeed.

Decoding the President, because someone has to: Did Trump just blow up concerted US effort to ban Chinese 5G kit?

Milton

Re: Let's see

'Let's see

1) a company based in China that would be financially ruined if any government "influence" was found.

2) a company based in the USA with more security exploits than I can be bothered to count.

Which would you ban from "sensitive networks"?'

I do get the point, but it's irrelevant. Sure, the western democracies are infected by psychotically greedy companies of basically disgusting ethics like Facebook and Google, and there are plenty of others whose software actually gets worse and less secure as time goes on (Microsoft Windows), not even to count decaying dinosaurs like IBM and Oracle whose grotesquely overpriced and inefficient software is simply bad to have around ...

... but the fact that we have so stupidly surrounded ourselves with this shit is neither argument nor excuse for allowing a hostile foreign power to infect our critical systems and place us at a further disadvantage. China is objectively a bad government of bad people motivated to do bad things. It is growing in power and only a hopeless naif would imagine that it will not try to extend its malign influence to us if allowed to.

It simply cannot be allowed. The fact that Facebook and Google are self-inflicted diseases does not change that in the slightest.

Milton

100% nonsense as usual

Trump is simply talking his usual childish drivel, repeating half-baked, poorly understood points from whatever cable news he was watching most recently—or whichever of his lickspittles and lackeys last got his ear. His tendency to repeat Fox 'News' lies and daft propaganda after a session stuffing his carcase with burgers in front of the telly is by now very well known. The only thing that makes these statements interesting (to a psychiatrist?) is how he so often gets the wrong end of the stick, doesn't remember key facts or simply invents things, like a boastful child. He has credibility with his apologists only because (a) they're even dumber than he is, and/or (b) he's a racist, misogynist, regressive slug, and they'll forgive everything else if they can have that. Those two categories pretty much explain the support of his aptly named 'base' and GOP/Fox, respectively.

As I've argued before, given China's history of bad behaviour and the nature of its government, we have to go by capabilities rather intentions, and for that reason western democracies should by exceedingly cautious before using any Chinese soft or -hardware. It's just too easy to secrete mal- and spyware into almost any electronic component you can think of, and arguably even easier with software when you have anything from 10⁴ to 10⁶ or more lines of code. I am not convinced by "But they share their source code" because (a) it is possible to be extremely sneaky, even unto meddling with hashes, and (b) that still doesn't cover the hardware, and I defy anyone to prove that every fantastically complex multi-layer motherboard coming out of the 恶意的混蛋 plant is precisely identical to the 50,000 others and does not have a 1mm² 'extra' snuck into Layer4 under a fat electrolytic (or even inside said capacitor).

I agree with the grown-ups on this: nothing touched by the Chinese should be allowed anywhere near secure or confidential data systems or networks or national infrastructure. The possibiltiies for mischief are sky high. the temptation is unquestionably there. And their government's motives are demonstrably vile.

It will do the west no harm to skill up in these areas (perhaps even a long term benefit); there is no pressing urgency about 5G (it can barely penetrate a brick wall, FFS, and self-driving cars are in the slow lane, whatever the manufacturers claim); and anything that damages the Chinese economy, while it may cause us some pain, certainly saps the dollars they will otherwise use to build aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

And if anyone is thinking about Osborne's witlessly stupid Hinkley-C nuclear plant (Tory chancellor partnering with a communist totalitarian regime and a foregin nationalised energy company, you couldn't invent more reekingly hypocritical shit), yes, I agree: if we're kicking Huawei out, having Chinese involvement in a strategic national nuclear infrastructure project is clearly batshit lunacy.

Oracle sued for $4.5m after ERP system delivery date 'moved from 2015 to 2016, then 2017, then... er, never'

Milton

Consequences

But surely, if Oracle were sued every time its sales and marketing lizards made untruthful claims for its products' performance and/or made a monumentally expensive and incompetent mess of a project, then it would by now be a mistrusted dinosaur of a company, with a terrible reputation, on a trajectory to slow death and irrelevance?

Visited the Grand Canyon since 2000? You'll have great photos – and maybe a teensy bit of unwanted radiation

Milton

"What if terrorists ..."

Yes, a slightly credible dirty bomb would be a possibility. Imagine grinding the stuff down to a powder, packing it around some crude 5-lb ANFO bombs left up high on some city buildings and phoning in a threat about "twenty-pound uranium dirty bombs". The real peril would be low but once authorities' radiation counters started clicking all over NY, they'd have to act as if the thing was potentially deadly. Chaos.

Good job terrorists are (a) stupid and (b) unable to procure or manufacture nasty things. Let's keep it that way.

Germany tells America to verpissen off over Huawei 5G cyber-Sicherheitsbedenken

Milton

Capabilities

I won't bore you all again by pointing out that from a security point of view you must weigh capabilities first, not merely intentions.

So my question is not "Can we prove Chinese-originated kit has backdoors?" but "Could China do this?"

Given the vile nature of that country's government and the risks it poses to western liberal democracy and human rights, we should sup with an immensely long spoon.

My second question then is "How confident can the likes of GCHQ be in their assessment?" We should assume Chinese coders are at least as sneaky as any others ... So, are we feeling lucky, punks?

Unearthed emails could be smoking gun in epic GDPR battle: Google, adtech giants 'know they break Euro privacy law'

Milton

"Online advertising model"

Not for the hundredth time, I really wonder whether the "online advertising model" is not a very big, fat emperor with very few clothes. The organisations grasping for a money will of course tell any and every lie to try to persuade marketurds to advertise: but how much of this is money hurled against a wall like so much shit (which, of course, it is), hoping some will stick?

Maybe there are credulous children out there, believing the shabby advertising drivel, but does anyone else even notice this garbage any more?

I really wonder if even a cent of every $100 and dollars was worth spending.

Solder and Lego required: The Register builds glorious Project Alias gizmo to deafen Alexa

Milton

Full marks for pointlessness

I like the fun of a somewhat superfluous gadget as much as anyone I guess, but you're right: I completely fail to see the point of paying for a spy device to install in your home (purchased, presumably, because you are actually too lazy even to walk a few paces and press a button) only to spend even more money hobbling it because you (quite rightly) don't trust the hardware, the software or the vendor.

Bonkers, much?

Dratted hipster UX designers stole my corporate app

Milton

Easy to Learn vs Easy to Use

Something embarrassingly obvious that took me a while to grasp, when I was beginning my second life, in IT, decades ago.

I don't really need to remind folks here that this question goes to the heart of UI design, especially in the gulf between mass-market software and bespoke corporate stuff.

I'd suggest that while the design of interfaces for look and feel is important, we still often overlook the importance of providing alternatives in the form of shortcuts, key combos, gestures when appropriate - so that as users become adept and experienced, they can leave E2L behind for E2U.

Bloke thrown in the cooler for eight years after 3D-printing gun to dodge weapon ban

Milton

Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

7.62 x 39? Do you rate the possibility that there a lot of Russian weapons in Chicago?

Return of the audio format wars and other money-making scams

Milton
Coat

Pornographic records

And no one seems to remember pornographic records.

You can't play them any more, of course, unless you have a pornogaph.

Granddaddy of the DIY repair generation John Haynes has loosened his last nut

Milton

Never a word about the jam jar though

Having painstakingly reassembled the engine of my Honda CB250 after a crankshaft bearing ground itself to filings—and I mean pains-taking, for I had to drill out some sheared bolts using a reverse-thread extractor, learning as I went at the age of 17: yes, I am that old—I got it running, and managed another several thousand miles on the thing.

But the manual said not a word about the jam jar half full of bits left over at the end.

I will never know where those few nuts, springs and curiously-shaped parts were supposed to go, or the difference they should have made ....

If you want a vision of the future, imagine not a boot stamping on a face, but keystroke logging on govt contractors' PCs

Milton

Another substitute for bad management

It's yet another astonishingly clumsy and intrusive way of failing to deal with the fundamental problem: bad management and rotten leadership. You never, ever get the best from people by effectively threatening them, spying on them and sanctioning them. At best you get grudging compliance to the lowest common denominator. If you want the best from your workers, you motivate them properly, make them feel valued, and reward them appropriately. This is not hard to understand ... but it goes against the mentality of bean-counters and politicians: the former able to value only what they can count; the latter always keen to hypocritically demand from others what they cannot deliver themselves.

I'd expect this idiot idea to result in something of an arms race, as disgruntled techies seek to fool and foil the spyware, and, of course, it will drive many contractors to sensible, well-managed employers who are capable of setting realistic goals and deadlines and then letting their contractors get on with the job untroubled by thoughts of noxious spying.

It boils down to a simple concept: do you want quantity, or quality? This nasty notion may get you the former; it will do nothing for the latter.

(As to the fact that the bills are being pushed by the software manufacturers ... well, there are few things that combine greed and stupidity more effectively than a politician.)

Object-recognition AI – the dumb program's idea of a smart program: How neural nets are really just looking at textures

Milton

Wrong priorities

So a somewhat simplistic take on this is that the CNNs are lazily prioritising texture when they ought to be prioritising something else, and a sophomoric reaction would be to decide that basic shape should be prioritised instead - and given what's been said about different angles and viewpoints, the word 'topology' comes to mind. But hold! - topologically, a teacup is identical to a donut. So this isn't so straightforward. This is going to involve proportion as well as shape, and texture, and the researchers behind these schemes are going to have to think hard about how to get the systems to take the hint, presumably without it being made explicit. Interesting challenge.

Lovely website you got there. Would be a shame if we, er, someone were to sink it: Google warns EU link tax will magnify media monetary misery

Milton

Slow learners

All of these ideas are tinkering at the periphery, which is why they won't work. The fundamental problem—the absolute core of abuse of power by the internet giants—is the "free" use model, which perpetuates only by monetising the users. Google and Facebook don't charge users, so the users are the product. The abuse of privacy follows inevitably.

It would be hard to explicitly compel companies to charge for "free" services, but it's easy to do implicitly: simply ban the storage, collection, analysis, synthesis, sale or transfer of personal information which is not strictly required for transactional, operational use. Fines for non-compliance will be existentially threatening. In a heartbeat, Google and Facebook have to revert to the "honest" model: charging for their services. I've listed the many benefits of this before and I'm not going to go through it all again—smart people can explore this idea and come to their own conclusions.

The inetrnet took a tragically awful wrong turn in permitting the "free use" to arise in the first place. Had we all had to pay for email and search and social messaging etc right from the start, the internet would be a hugely different place, and a much healthier one.

Pants-purveyor in plea for popularity: It's not just any pork push... it's an M&S 'love sausage'

Milton

M&S and MS

Given that we have two top stories about Transparent Crassness In Marketing, from Microsoft's thuddingly stupid attempt to con people into using Office36x to Marks & Spencer's juvenile double entendre, can we at last agree that an eminently practical solution to pollution and scarce resources would be to humanely dispose of all advertising, marketing and sales persons on the planet? I know it seems extreme, but we'll save oxygen and food, reduce CO₂ emissions, provide valuable fertiliser for reforestation and raise the entire species' mean IQ by at least ten points.

You know it makes sense.

(Oh, all right, we could retrain a few of them, but there isn't that much demand for dog walkers.)

Where x gets continually smaller

Only plebs use Office 2019 over Office 365, says Microsoft's weird new ad campaign

Milton

No thanks

So I could use an expensive office software package that is bursting with arcane functionality of which I routinely use about 3%, and which spies on me and steals my personal data.

Or I could pay even more for a less featured, slower, less reliable version of that same app, which still spies on me and steals my personal data.

Or I can just stick with Libre. Free. Always available. Working. Doesn't spy. Doesn't steal my data.

Oooh, difficult choice.

Perhaps MS could have warnings before its adverts, like "Ignore this unless you're a clueless corporate monkey"?