Your PIN is your signing key. It encrypts the data to the bank such that only they can read it, think of it like that.
Just transmitting card number + PIN is no more secure than just card number + expiry date, really.
But transmitting card number + nonce generated a secure chip on the card, signed with the user PIN and an internal incrementing number from the chip itself and presented to the bank? Now replay attacks are useless and even knowing card number + the PIN itself doesn't help.
You now have to physically have THAT card itself to make it work (worst you could do is a "cardholder not present" transaction otherwise, which doesn't need the PIN anyway). In the same way, your example of card number + postcode (also used in other countries) shouldn't be enough on its own either.
Though I hate Chip And PIN for many reasons, yours aren't any of them, and it's undeniable that nobody bothers or is even capable of verifying signatures at all. And it has significantly reduced fraud.
Until, that is, we went stupid and put NFC payments on the same card so any kind of temporary physical proximity is enough to charge, even without the user knowing. But that's another matter entirely.
And I don't know about you, but my card provider has online challenges at online stores if I don't use the card very often there or if it's an unusual transaction - by way of asking for a password that I NEVER use at a cash machine or anywhere else - only online. Verified By Visa and/or Master SecureCode.
Your problem is that you don't understand what the PIN is actually doing. Asking for a PIN doesn't work how you think - you use the PIN to unlock the chip on the card which is than able to sign a transaction and give a signature (AuthCode) that you then give to the vendor from where the bank can confirm the transaction came from your card itself.
Because unless you want to give everyone on the planet a way to present data to the secure chip and read responses (probably not good for customer ease of use) by way of some kind of chip reader that plugs into every possible smartphone and every computer, then it's not useful to have every online transaction require a PIN any more than an expiry date or postcode. And, in fact, is why those online system exist with an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT code that only works online. Hell, they even present a custom challenge so you know you're not being tricked into entering your code online on a fake site (i.e. only Verified By Visa and I know what text it should be putting in the box that asks me to verify my code).
Rather than complain about something you don't understand, use it and test it and investigate it. The reason Chip & PIN is there and works is because someone sat down, thought of all the use cases, thought of the attacks, and designed a single cheap chip that could solve most of them effectively enough for pennies-per-card (I've never been charged for a replacement credit card in my life, and chip-bearing smart-cards are so cheap as to be throwaway items if you have any dealings with them in access control / banking / code-signing / etc. applications).
I haven't even signed my last four / five cards (all of which reached their expiry dates), because NOBODY uses the signature and nobody even queries it any more. That's how long other countries have been using Chip & PIN.
Plus... you DO NOT want some cheap random bit of hardware interfacing with your card and just needing to send it a PIN that you type in plaintext onto it to unlock. You'd hope that such devices would at least have to have some kind of bank / merchant secure certificate to sign their part of the transaction to help you a) stop people just playing with credit cards using hobbyist electronics, b) require some form of device certification to be able to talk to your card, c) provide some security over the interface, d) provide some accountability should someone just start cloning a particular card reader that you issue out.
Chip & PIN has many holes. But you don't see that because you don't even understand the purpose of the PIN in the first place.
If they'd just let it stay at "Most Recent" after I select that, I think that make me a thousand times happier than anything else they could do.
It's really tiresome to have to select the option or use a special URL just to NOT get some random historical posts and junk from groups at the top of my page, rather than a list of the most recent things people and groups did/said.
It's almost like we don't need to bother to go through hearing actual evidence, sworn under oath, cross-examined, including expert testimony and witness and victim statements, including potentially highly sensitive personal statements about an incredibly intimate event which people may or may not want all the details in the press but which would be examined by a court.
Nah, let's just judge him on what got into the news and let him go / not based on our personal interpretation of such.
P.S. if you're ever in doubt about the sanity, stability, mental health, trustworthiness, or capability of later lying of someone you're about to sleep with - probably best not to sleep with them, consensually or not. Just saying.
Are you suggesting that contempt of court be allowed?
Just because YOU don't think that he should stand trial for the original accusation, doesn't mean that the UK court weren't obliged to make that happen (by international agreement) or that in skipping bail he hasn't committed a crime against a UK court on UK soil.
And, I don't know if you understand this bit:
arrest != charge != conviction.
You can be convicted for resisting arrest, however. Arrest is literally "let's stop him so we can investigate if a crime has occurred". A charge is "We have reasonable belief he did something illegal, which a court will now judge and we may have to detain him until such time as the court can do so". A conviction is "the court has determined beyond reasonable doubt that they have broken the law".
He was wanted for arrest, to answer potential rape charges. As part of this, he was arrested in the UK. A court ordered him to stay within bail conditions (which is a concession, so he's not under arrest for months on end). By breaching those court conditions, he is now automatically CHARGED with contempt of court which will - without some seriously extraordinary circumstance proven to a court - result in a conviction. The contempt charge is now based on the prima-facie evidence of failing to abide by the conditions of the UK court. It doesn't matter WHY. Or what the history is. Or what else is going on. He is now required to stand trial for that if nothing else.
As such, the UK police has a duty to arrest him, to face trial for the charge of contempt of court, which - whether or not he is convicted - will also make him available to stand trial and answer charges from the original arrest.
Not one bit of the that entire last paragraph is optional. Only the potential outcome of it (the courts could in theory side with him and let him go, or they could jsut convict him for the bail offence and let him go, or they could convict him for the bail offence and hand him over as per a valid international arrest warrant).
So... obviously they were sued for contributory acts towards the obstruction of justice, no?
If not, why not?
Literally, the guy who phoned it in has deliberately obstructed justice, whether or not the company policy says to do it, or whether the system is entirely operated remotely, or even whether the data asked for was to hand. You can go to jail for decades for that offence alone, whether or not anything is found, which would make anyone think twice about paging that number, no?
I'm more concerned not that Uber did this (they're scumbags, we get the idea already), but that a manager would press it (and in Canada) at personal risk of imprisonment, and that no action was taken about it (whether or not they later provided the data).
If you're trading in Canada, you're liable to their laws and they are able to seize related equipment and data with your co-operation or not, and performing a deliberate act with the express intention of removing said access can only be construed as obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on the court order. It's not even "open to interpretation"... it's quite clear that the only reason to use a facility that cuts off the system should the police come knocking is to stop the police seeing things you don't want them to see but that they may well be otherwise entitled to see.
Uber are scumbags because courts like this allow them to be.
I hate to defend Apple (literally.. I do HATE to defend Apple), but:
"There is no one "right" answer to a question like this save the ones we collectively and imperfectly come to as a society. Absolutist assertions that it is either unbreakable, impenetrable encryption for all, or nothing, are false." "Apple believes it is protecting freedom. It's wrong."
Well, that absolutist assertion seems like you have an answer in mind.
You're trying to mask it, but a backdoor is a backdoor. If Apple are capable of creating a version of the OS that will update over an existing version on a targeted iPhone and thus render the encryption on their iPhone moot - then there is NOTHING stopping a person at Apple from, say, reading the president's private bedroom photos from his iPhone.
You can say "it won't happen", you can say "nobody would do that", you can say "you just need to pick people carefully", etc. but the fact is that at the end of the day some small group of Apple employees have some method of access to every Apple device on the planet. To suggest that this could never be misused would be false.
As such, to not even have THE CAPABILITY is to render the possibility moot. No, we won't push out targeted firmware to an individual iPhone identified by law enforcement - we'll design systems such that we CAN'T EVEN DO THAT (i.e. one iPhone is no different to any other and can't be identified by such a system). That's how to secure your customers and your business. A kind of legal self-denial if you like. The best way to ensure you can't get drunk is to not have the alcohol in the house at all.
Your other arguments in that article are literal red herrings;
"Apple is welcome to use every legal mechanism possible to fight this court order â" that is their absolute right. But to start and grow their company in the United States, to exist here because of the fundamental environment we create for freedom and innovation, and then to act as if Apple is somehow divorced from the US and owes it nothing, even when ordered by a court to do so, is a puzzling and worrisome position."
So... because Fuck Yeah America! they are required to kowtow and not use a valid legal argument in a US court? I think that's what that article says there. If the US court wished to sanction them, they could and would. You could literally stop Apple operating overnight if the courts so determined that they were that non-compliant. But they presented an argument, which clearly won enough doubt to not push through such orders to being prosecutions for failing to comply. And the rest of the "because they're in the US, they should give us something" stuff is just a distraction based on national pride.
This is about the only thing Apple have ever done that I approve of. It shows that they have at least some semblance of a principle, and - amazingly - it would be much cheaper and easier to comply. They are literally costing themselves money to secure a freedom. That's the one good thing I've ever been able to say about Apple, ever.
And it is securing your freedom too. How? If a guy at Apple can do it, so can a guy at the NSA order him to do it and also to then never speak of it, and that guy at the NSA could easily be working for a foreign state, or to try to discredit the president, or be someone who wants to set you up, etc.
Literally, a dystopian state would love this... hey, just let me tap into everyone's iPad and iPhone, and by the way you cannot ever say a thing. If you haven't seen, powers - once established - are universally misused for a long time until they're brought back under control (if at all). Some councils in the UK are still using "anti-terror" legislation to get personal details on people who put the wrong bins out on the wrong days. I kid you not.
By not allowing the creep to start, publicly, visibly, legally, at great expense and when they could just kowtow, Apple has done more of a service in this small act than can be countered by stopping a terrorist.
Hate Apple products. Hate Apple business tactics. Hate Apple's complete lack of social responsibility. Hate Apple design.
Their one redeeming feature: That they don't just make it easy for the FBI (or anyone else).
Tell them off and call them names for anything else, I'll be right there cheering you on. But insulting them because they won't deliberately weaken security just in case their users happen to be a terrorist? Yeah, that I won't just jump on board with.
A "sort by percent" column for achievements and a flag to silence notifications.
Are these really release notes for a big "preview" update, or did someone accidentally pull in two tiny little repo summaries for minuscule patches?
It gets me that people think this qualifies as a feature, especially given that almost every other achievement-based list on similar services lets you do this (hell, it's splatted over the front of my Steam profile for the first, and is a one-tick option box for the latter - and has been for... what? Possibly 10 years or more?).
And it CANNOT WORK DECENTLY WELL on what you know as a home broadband connection because you CANNOT buffer interactivity.
And of course there's a market. That's why Steam Link was sold for about 10GBP over Christmas - they were dumping stock of something that basically does exactly the same.
Dunno about you guys but my local McDonald's did this a few years ago, as have many others.
Massive touchscreens in the foyer, tap and order from the whole menu, then just wait for the guy to bring it out. Hell, it even tells you how many orders are in front of you, etc. and you can make every tiny change imaginable to the ingredients.
Sure, they still have kitchen staff (we're not suggesting automating the kitchens, right? That's just a food-safety nightmare waiting to happen and how do they clean themselves?). But they have JUST kitchen staff, who get a list, put the food on the tray and deal with the cooker alerts etc.
It's much faster and more efficient than any McDonald's I've ever used, you can order while ten people are dithering over what to have, you can even assign a seat and have it brought over to you. And, at the end of the day, it's the same food.
I've said for years that restaurants should do this - even posh ones. Tying up waiting staff with orders, corrections, menus, allergy queries etc. is daft when people are quite capable of doing all that themselves - sometimes before they've even sat down. And then BOTH of you have a cast-iron receipt of what was ordered and how. So long as the food delivered tallies, what does it matter?
"So what's in the sea bass?" "Press ingredients, ma'am". "Can we split this bill?" "Press split bill, sir." "Do you have any pork left?" "Only what the menu will let you select, sir".
If Jack-in-the-box have already trialled this I can't understand why they haven't been fitting it to all new stores and starting doing it for refurbishments. There's literally no reason not to, even if you don't replace ALL the staff immediately.
Indeed. I used to VPN over my internal Wifi that only I knew the password for.
WEP was cracked? Didn't matter. VPN software was cracked? Didn't matter. WPA was cracked? Didn't matter.
So long as they aren't ALL cracked at the same time, you're safe. And there was no measurable latency or other additions, but full end-to-end verification and encryption, TWICE. I used to game CS over it.
Give yourself enough layers and you don't have a window where you're vulnerable to compromise, whereas everyone just reliant on "WPA2 being secure" does. This gives you time to update, replace hardware, change settings, test if you're vulnerable, etc.
Because then some naming authority will get involved and you'll have the domain-name debacle all over again about "who owns the name Starbucks for Wifi worldwide".
"One of the key improvements in WPA3 will aim to solve a common security problem: open Wi-Fi networks. Seen in coffee shops and airports, open Wi-Fi networks are convenient but unencrypted, allowing anyone on the same network to intercept data sent from other devices. WPA3 employs individualized data encryption, which scramble the connection between each device on the network and the router, ensuring secrets are kept safe and sites that you visit haven't been manipulated"
Sure. But your computer will still not know that the CoffeeShop SSID that they're connecting to was the one the shop set up, though, will they? There's no exclusivity for SSIDs and if there was, it'd be a denial-of-service opportunity.
Once connected, and a secret shared, yes. But with no password the initial connection is still giving people a chance to shove you on THEIR connection rather than the one you think, and then you can be WPA3-authenticated to them rather than what you thought without having a clue.
Decapping a chip is difficult, expensive and not guaranteed. Most TPMs and security-chips are almost impossible to open without damage.
Go look at the arcade-ROM decapping efforts. Even 30-year-old ROMs have protections that mean some games are now permanently lost forever, and the ones that are successful rely on "seeing" (via X-Ray etc.) the data as a visible effect on the image. That doesn't work for anything modern at all, you'd need new kinds of instruments or something to measure the individual charge on an individual transistor from billions of them on a tiny sliver of silicon.
Modern chips, especially those designed to be secure and avoid tampering? Not a chance. Nobody has yet demonstrated an attack on a modern TPM chip like that, and the private keys aren't exactly just sitting there in plain-text even if you could.
And then updating for EVERY technology change, nm-advancement, etc.? Cost would not just be prohibitive but astronomical.
Do you believe that those 7800 devices a year are all just one read away from stopping a terrorist attack each? Highly unlikely. If anything one arrest could result in 20-30 devices, not even worrying about whether it was a drug-deal or a telecoms violation or whatever else the FBI might deal with.
The value just isn't there, even if the technology could exist.
To my knowledge, literally NO-ONE in the world has read a key from a physical iPhone security chip, for instance. There have been software flaws, and things found in publicly available firmware that are quickly patched out but even those don't cause the processor to magically give up all its private keys. That's not how those chips work. Even Apple themselves may not be able to do it (only replace the device in question and reset it, not bring across the private keys).
This is part of the "problem". The system is secure. And that means secure from all attackers, including the people who want access to the devices for legitimate reasons (e.g. the owners in some cases!). If it wasn't, it would be insecure, against both those categories of people, and thus not be fit for purpose.
Sure, at some point, someone will find a hole. And then the next round will devices will counter that. But the FBI expecting to have something that nobody else in the world has, possibly even the manufacturer, which can only be given by weakening the whole purpose of the system for everyone, and for it to be cost-effective, to handle a boat load of enquiries that they presumably have NO OTHER evidence for? That's just silly.
I'm sure if it was "go to war or not" territory, someone would find a way. But there, no expense is spared. As a run of the mill "let's see what this terrorist suspect texted via WhatsApp" enquiry? Not a chance.
If they COULD do this, they would be. And they'd be keeping very quiet about it. Because the second it was public, every new phone, chip and computer would be redesigned to stop it in the future.
With a movie you can buffer. You will be buffering for the first 10 seconds of so of content at least, and then any latency is swallowed by the buffer.
With a game... you can't buffer. It's like watching live TV.
I don't know if you've ever tried it, but Live TV is even buffered (e.g. BBC iPlayer is often a second or so out of sync with the TV broadcast). Things like TVPlayer.com... they can be 5-10 seconds out of whack. And they cut out A LOT.
A 10-second delay on your movie is invisible. A 100ms delay on your interactive game is VERY visible, especially if it comes and goes as your connection fades and improves. And you can't really buffer input / interactive content as that just makes things worse. Sometimes you even just "throw away" old data and pretend it didn't exist.
I stream all sorts. But streaming a game? No. There's a reason that even Steam Link says "use Ethernet, not Wifi". Unreliable delivery even across a local Wifi network (no Internet involved) is enough to throw out the user experience. Doing that over people's shared crappy broadband/routers/connections?
To be honest... their latency is going to be the least of your worries.
People are going to expect to play this on a device that isn't pushing input to the game directly, over their home wifi (still on 2.4GHz with loads of neighbours around), shared with the whole household, across their standard broadband, through the ISP and to the game servers.
From there, sure, the inter-gamer latency will basically be 0ms. But the latency from all that path will be horrible, variable, out of control of anybody by the user themselves (who won't care about that, they'll just know "it doesn't work well").
Hell, I rarely see a home router even capable of QoS, let alone one that's even got it turned on. Big sister loading up her YouTube makeup tutorial is going to make the game unplayable not just from a latency point of view, but sheer pressure on bandwidth, and the effect won't be "fast local display but laggy other players" but "complete breakdown of the video stream".
OnLive died for more than one reason. It's cheaper to just buy a gaming computer and game (or even just rent a computer directly) than they can offer. The latency sucks. It's highly dependent on good wifi, good local network, good connectivity to the cloud via your ISP.
Hell, for a silly multiplayer Java game I play, you can double just the game latency by browsing a website with lots of images on the shared 30Mbps connection. Until I put on QoS specifically for that game's ports, the girlfriend browsing Facebook could make my ping spike.
I'd hate to think what happens when you're streaming a video that basically can't be buffered at all on most random home's wifi full of devices all interfering and downloading at the same time.
And if they have to have a dedicated card for each concurrent user, capable of playing the latest games, then you could easily buy a GPU for a home computer for the price that they'll need to pay + profit to do so.
Plus... what do you think is going to be required on, say, Christmas Day when everyone wants to play their new games and you've promise they all have a dedicated card? The capacity planning alone means you're basically into just-as-much as just buying a card per user anyway.
This is precisely the reason OnLive went bankrupt. You're paying to have a gaming-capable computer, in a datacentre, for each simultaneous user, ready to go, on-demand, 24 hours a day, and there's almost no way to scale that up without having a card-per-concurrent-user (in theory, there's no reason one GPU couldn't offer up half its cores to one user and half to another, but that's not what they are saying, and you'd need some SERIOUSLY expensive GPUs to be able to do that and still work for modern games).
It would be cheaper to just rent out to every user a full gaming machine and deliver it to their home, for the life of their subscription.
But this is basically what Steam Link / In-Home Streaming is.
OnLive literally went bust trying to make this kind of thing work.
It's not new, or surprising, but it's not really what people want. I really *don't* want to stream games from a computer that someone else has total control over. Everything from monthly subscriptions, to losing all your games if you cut it, to massive peak-period performance hits, to poorer quality gaming (30ms is "nice", but most people will never be able to manage that and won't know why, and will then just blame the service).
Honestly, we've been able to do this for years in a variety of ways. But nobody is going to pay money to do that.
"The game streaming works by dedicating a GPU to each customer, so performance and frame rates should be pretty solid."
Then it's going to cost AT LEAST as much as a GPU, a computer, the cost of the game, the connectivity, and the associated hardware (at your end) overall. Or they either would be making a massive loss, or it would be shit.
Follow the links in the article and get to the place that actually sells the above "first 64-bit open-source RISC-V chip".
They tell you:
"In its standard configuration, before any third-party modifications or overclocking, the 64-bit, multi-core U45-MC Coreplex has four U54 CPUs and a single E51 CPU, each running at 1.5 GHz. SiFive said "
So, though it might be hard, it's not impossible at all. Someone's done it, in fact. And looking at any cheap laptop seller, you'll see 1.5GHz chips in there (even from Intel!).
So it certainly captures enough of the market to be viable. The other issues (of software compatibility, actual performance, power usage, security, etc.) are still to be beaten, but it looks viable to me.
With the right coding and effort, you could turn that chip into an fully-working Android-based device, for instance, and be open-source top-to-bottom.
I would make a conscious exception for army medics, especially those higher skilled like surgeons etc.. I don't imagine (though I'm not sure) that they are there to kill people.
But even then... they've basically chosen the job of a doctor/surgeon and then they are ordered to ignore the Hippocratic oath, because they then fail to attend to the enemy wounded too. I'm sure they look after prisoners (though there was little evidence of such at Guantanamo?), I'm sure they mend up their own people, and innocent civilians, but they also walk past enemy wounded/dying? And presumably if they stop to help, they'll be ordered to move on.
They are possibly the exception but then I don't get why they are an explicit part of one particular military rather than, say, a independent red-cross unit.
It still doesn't make sense to me. However you cook it, the morals that go with such a job should mean you avoid the military service. Anything else is hypocritical, not Hippocratical.
To be honest, I can't quite work how they find people clever enough to do that kind of thing properly, who are dumb enough to want to do it.
"Protecting the nation" is all well and good but anyone with a brain should be able to tell that they go far, far beyond such a remit, into things that they really shouldn't.
I think the same about GCHQ etc. and even Turing (kind of a hero to me). You can romanticise it, and say how many lives they save, but to me that's marred by the freedoms they impinge upon in doing so, the tools they create (and leave behind) that are capable of much less moral actions, etc.
I'm probably not smart enough to work for such places, despite my education being in all kinds of related areas. But I'd have to refuse any kind of military service and/or spy work even if I was smart enough.
When you meet a guy who goes into the army because he failed school, sure, that's a good option for him... job security, a decent amount of respect and professionalism, transferable skills. It makes sense. But when you meet someone who obviously has a brain and would have been successful even if they hadn't chosen to be a high-ranking officer, you have to wonder what their motivation is. I've never really got to the bottom of it because those people I've met like that are quite cagey and tend to hide behind some argument about "service to the country" and so on.
I suppose the guys who invented the nuclear bomb would be no different. I just fail to see how you can get that far, be that deep-thinking, and not insert some sense of morality into your life.
And, more importantly, how do they handle those who do then start to question what they're doing? Is it literally just threats to make things worse for them if they don't? It's something I could never reconcile with the people I generally meet - either they're smart and have a good handle on precisely why that kind of thing is something they want to steer well clear of, or they're not.
Political colouration, etc. aside (which is really just pettiness... literally classing billions of people as "one of those two types of people"), how do intelligent people work in blind obedience to service to their nation?
"The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition."
Bit late to do anything about them if they are already in effect at that point.
The article is about copyright, but let's take patents.
Under your system, patents would never expire or come into the public domain. You'd still be paying Mr Fire (or his estate) for every fire made into perpetuity. And Mr Window. And Mr Garden Spade. Literally the cost of EVERYTHING you touch would increase overnight to pay patent royalties to someone who invented something 100 years ago, is dead and/or hasn't done a day's work since. This is apparently the bit you hate.
The same still applies for copyrights... on music, movies, characters, comics, sketches, poems, books, etc. You'd still be paying Mr Shakespeare 500 years later for the use of his material. Thus the price of everything you touch goes up. You literally can't do anything without some lawyer poking their head out of the woodwork and demanding their 1%. Said lawyer works for large faceless corporation that bought up family assets a hundred years ago and does nothing but ask people for money for using them into perpetuity.
What you're in fact suggesting is that people get a monopoly on everything they ever did, long after they are dead and gone. Schools would still be paying Chaucer's estate for the use of his works, there wouldn't be a play you could perform without paying money, there wouldn't be a book you could read, a painting you could see (have you SEEN the fuss over even postcards of things like the Mona Lisa, etc.?), a landmark you could look at (Eiffel Tower night displays are "copyright").
And the money would all be going to the lawyers-of-sons-of-sons-of-sons-of someone who once wrote a joke, for doing NOTHING. This is the kind of freeloading you appear to be against, no? People demanding money for something they never had any part in whatsoever? Isn't that worse than someone who wants to read a book written by a guy who died so long ago nobody even remembers who owns the rights?
Public domain is an inherent part of everyone's history. From music to books, movies to encyclopaedia - everything you do has been done, said and written about a thousand times before. And we don't want to get to a point where we have to pay EVERY person along the way, into perpetuity, for their tiniest of contributions.
What are the most expensive movies to buy? Disney. Why? Because they were made in the 1930's, and now just about anyone who has ever had a part in their making is long-dead. But the lawyers still want their cut of something that even their grandfather wouldn't have seen first time round, necessarily.
What you suggest basically results in creating a new type of mega-corporation that you have to pay for everything you do, and who do nothing to earn that. Literally, the pattern of your floorboards, the colour of your carpet, the shape of your biscuit tin. All these things are "uncopyrightable" / "unpatentable" / "untrademarkable" because they're obvious or already in the public domain. Going forward, removing that public domain part makes everything licensable, and therefore requiring a fee.
From someone in a country with proper gun control:
Looks like an assassination.
The guy is SO FAR from everything, he has no clue you're referring to him. He's opened his door, there's a bunch of bright lights all down the streets hundreds of yards away. People are yelling and shouting, he can't tell what's being said. Nobody is close enough to do anything BUT snipe him from a distance, so they can't judge what he's doing anyway.
Hint: Innocent people do things that you might not want them to do. "HEY YOU! DON'T MOVE!" (turns behind himself, turns back with his finger pointing to his chest, shakes head, shrugs shoulders, maybe takes a step or two back.)
Aggressive stance, my fucking arse, you can't see a thing and neither would the cop have (don't forget, you can analyse and replay!). Unless he clearly pulled an object and aimed, any other police force in the world would be knocking the shooter off active duty immediately and probably pressing charges / initiating internal action. There's literally no way to tell what's going on from that distance. There's no way a shot should even have been fired, even a warning shot, certainly not a killing shot.
I've seen UK police deal with the same - but actually a genuine shooter - situation in a residential area. They turn up. They're told there's hostages and a shooter. They clear the street, back further than those police cars are parked. And the knock on the door of the house. And they are by the door and up close unless they have specialist weaponry prepared way in advance (e.g. very prolonged incident). Nobody just pulls a pistol and shoots from that kind of range, you have no idea the guy is even the shooter and not a hostage or - gosh - random innocent civilian as in this case.
And you don't put people in the position where they have a choice about complying. You are feet from them, with a weapon, aimed at their body, and three others are walking up behind before they know what's going on. For God's sake, America, stop the shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude of your police.
Hell, let him get a shot off. Nobody's near, right? You're all behind cover. Let him actually fire, or turn back to the house before you think about pulling a trigger.
I literally cannot find bodycam footage of an armed incident with UK police that isn't close-up and personal. And for them, "armed" more usually means a guy with a knife, guns are rare so dealing with them is even more unusual and unexpected.
But you don't just shoot a guy from that range with any weapon... you have literally NO IDEA what he's actually doing. Horrible situation, to have to approach someone potentially dangerous? Gosh, if only we had a force of people expressly trained to do just that.
You guys SERIOUSLY need a full review of police procedure and re-training, with weapons taken from anyone who fails it.
That was: Suicide vests, height of multiple other attacks, knives, vehicles, potentially any other weapon, attacks on civilians actively in progress and confirmed, civilians trying to distract / fight the attackers, major incident, middle of central London. Three armed officers, in, within feet, close enough to touch them, take them all down, no police hurt, nobody else hurt except those with weapons.
"By law, the police shooting of suspects has to be independently investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission."
By law. For every single shot. You pull the trigger only to kill. That's it. A guy on a porch 100 yards away with nobody else visible isn't someone to kill without question.
Dunno what you teach your drivers over there, but there's generally regarded to be one lane, and multiple "overtaking lanes" in all the terminology for most of the countries I have seen driving-school things for. It has almost nothing to do with when you learned to drive unless you're positively ancient. You go into a "faster" lane only to overtake, then pull back in. All your reasoning is WHY you do that, but it's always been the rule of the road too.
If you're parallel-driving, you're an idiot. You're just blocking traffic. If you're going faster on the (passenger side) lanes, you're an idiot. If you're not actually overtaking in the (driver side) lanes, you're an idiot. Admit defeat, fall back, drop in 50 feet behind, what's the big deal? Don't block 2/3rds of the lanes between you and the other car who has no interest in what speed you're doing because HE'S not the one overtaking (or trying to) or in the wrong lane.
Hell, in my country, it's incredibly common to see a 4-lane motorway (freeway) with some idiot in the 3rd lane (i.e. should be overtaking TWO ENTIRE LANES of traffic) when there's nobody else anywhere near him. Everyone has to slow to his speed, bunch up, and try to squeeze past only via the "fastest" overtaking lane. How do you not notice you're a hazard? How do you not realise you're in the wrong when people flash/beep you and bunch up behind? How - once you have the first among-friends-anecdote about the dickhead in lane-3 - do you not think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't be doing that"?
If you want to reduce congestion, it's pretty easy. Smooth driving, look ahead. Leave yourself a gap. Leave that joining car a gap rather than fight (i.e. if both have to slow/speed/intrude to get into something that you could have shared / made clear for them). Drift between lanes (with appropriate signalling) rather than jerk between them. Remove the snap-judgement element, which is what makes drivers behind over-react for their own safety, which propagates backwards and starts causing problems (waves of slow-fast-slow-fast traffic with no obvious cause? Yeah, that's caused by idiots up ahead making rapid lane changes or fighting among themselves, they've done mathematical studies on it).
And, to be honest, for any significant distance on a motorway? Sit in the "slowest" lane, poodle along at "just" 60-70mph. You'll get there roughly the same time as the speeding idiot, you'll be less stressed, you have less to worry about and you can just slide around slow moving vehicles with ease and in your own time. "Cruise" control is appropriately named.
But, for sure, if you have to think about driving safely, or change how you go about driving because you read something on the Internet, you were an idiot before. What other stupid and inconsiderate things are you doing too?
Driving is actually easy, and motorway driving is actually quite relaxing, done right. Because there are no snap-judgements and "let's hope I react fast enough" if you drive properly, on a motorway there isn't a chance of a small child wandering across the road (but, hey, you can see so far in front you'd spot them anyway, right?).
The motorways of countries where road-laws are strict and people stick to them (e.g. Germany) are a joy to drive. Literally EVERYONE just moves over gently as soon as their manoeuvre is complete.
But if you have to THINK about how you drive, reason it out to yourself, take in information from other people to do so, you weren't paying attention in driving school, or you're an idiot that can't just look at the situation and say "Hold on a moment..."
Slashdot Mirror
Your PIN is your signing key. It encrypts the data to the bank such that only they can read it, think of it like that.
Just transmitting card number + PIN is no more secure than just card number + expiry date, really.
But transmitting card number + nonce generated a secure chip on the card, signed with the user PIN and an internal incrementing number from the chip itself and presented to the bank? Now replay attacks are useless and even knowing card number + the PIN itself doesn't help.
You now have to physically have THAT card itself to make it work (worst you could do is a "cardholder not present" transaction otherwise, which doesn't need the PIN anyway). In the same way, your example of card number + postcode (also used in other countries) shouldn't be enough on its own either.
Though I hate Chip And PIN for many reasons, yours aren't any of them, and it's undeniable that nobody bothers or is even capable of verifying signatures at all. And it has significantly reduced fraud.
Until, that is, we went stupid and put NFC payments on the same card so any kind of temporary physical proximity is enough to charge, even without the user knowing. But that's another matter entirely.
And I don't know about you, but my card provider has online challenges at online stores if I don't use the card very often there or if it's an unusual transaction - by way of asking for a password that I NEVER use at a cash machine or anywhere else - only online. Verified By Visa and/or Master SecureCode.
Your problem is that you don't understand what the PIN is actually doing. Asking for a PIN doesn't work how you think - you use the PIN to unlock the chip on the card which is than able to sign a transaction and give a signature (AuthCode) that you then give to the vendor from where the bank can confirm the transaction came from your card itself.
Because unless you want to give everyone on the planet a way to present data to the secure chip and read responses (probably not good for customer ease of use) by way of some kind of chip reader that plugs into every possible smartphone and every computer, then it's not useful to have every online transaction require a PIN any more than an expiry date or postcode. And, in fact, is why those online system exist with an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT code that only works online. Hell, they even present a custom challenge so you know you're not being tricked into entering your code online on a fake site (i.e. only Verified By Visa and I know what text it should be putting in the box that asks me to verify my code).
Rather than complain about something you don't understand, use it and test it and investigate it. The reason Chip & PIN is there and works is because someone sat down, thought of all the use cases, thought of the attacks, and designed a single cheap chip that could solve most of them effectively enough for pennies-per-card (I've never been charged for a replacement credit card in my life, and chip-bearing smart-cards are so cheap as to be throwaway items if you have any dealings with them in access control / banking / code-signing / etc. applications).
I haven't even signed my last four / five cards (all of which reached their expiry dates), because NOBODY uses the signature and nobody even queries it any more. That's how long other countries have been using Chip & PIN.
Plus... you DO NOT want some cheap random bit of hardware interfacing with your card and just needing to send it a PIN that you type in plaintext onto it to unlock. You'd hope that such devices would at least have to have some kind of bank / merchant secure certificate to sign their part of the transaction to help you a) stop people just playing with credit cards using hobbyist electronics, b) require some form of device certification to be able to talk to your card, c) provide some security over the interface, d) provide some accountability should someone just start cloning a particular card reader that you issue out.
Chip & PIN has many holes. But you don't see that because you don't even understand the purpose of the PIN in the first place.
If they'd just let it stay at "Most Recent" after I select that, I think that make me a thousand times happier than anything else they could do.
It's really tiresome to have to select the option or use a special URL just to NOT get some random historical posts and junk from groups at the top of my page, rather than a list of the most recent things people and groups did/said.
Gosh you have it all wrapped up.
It's almost like we don't need to bother to go through hearing actual evidence, sworn under oath, cross-examined, including expert testimony and witness and victim statements, including potentially highly sensitive personal statements about an incredibly intimate event which people may or may not want all the details in the press but which would be examined by a court.
Nah, let's just judge him on what got into the news and let him go / not based on our personal interpretation of such.
P.S. if you're ever in doubt about the sanity, stability, mental health, trustworthiness, or capability of later lying of someone you're about to sleep with - probably best not to sleep with them, consensually or not. Just saying.
Breach of bail conditions is a crime.
I think it comes under contempt of court.
Are you suggesting that contempt of court be allowed?
Just because YOU don't think that he should stand trial for the original accusation, doesn't mean that the UK court weren't obliged to make that happen (by international agreement) or that in skipping bail he hasn't committed a crime against a UK court on UK soil.
And, I don't know if you understand this bit:
arrest != charge != conviction.
You can be convicted for resisting arrest, however. Arrest is literally "let's stop him so we can investigate if a crime has occurred". A charge is "We have reasonable belief he did something illegal, which a court will now judge and we may have to detain him until such time as the court can do so". A conviction is "the court has determined beyond reasonable doubt that they have broken the law".
He was wanted for arrest, to answer potential rape charges. As part of this, he was arrested in the UK. A court ordered him to stay within bail conditions (which is a concession, so he's not under arrest for months on end). By breaching those court conditions, he is now automatically CHARGED with contempt of court which will - without some seriously extraordinary circumstance proven to a court - result in a conviction. The contempt charge is now based on the prima-facie evidence of failing to abide by the conditions of the UK court. It doesn't matter WHY. Or what the history is. Or what else is going on. He is now required to stand trial for that if nothing else.
As such, the UK police has a duty to arrest him, to face trial for the charge of contempt of court, which - whether or not he is convicted - will also make him available to stand trial and answer charges from the original arrest.
Not one bit of the that entire last paragraph is optional. Only the potential outcome of it (the courts could in theory side with him and let him go, or they could jsut convict him for the bail offence and let him go, or they could convict him for the bail offence and hand him over as per a valid international arrest warrant).
So... obviously they were sued for contributory acts towards the obstruction of justice, no?
If not, why not?
Literally, the guy who phoned it in has deliberately obstructed justice, whether or not the company policy says to do it, or whether the system is entirely operated remotely, or even whether the data asked for was to hand. You can go to jail for decades for that offence alone, whether or not anything is found, which would make anyone think twice about paging that number, no?
I'm more concerned not that Uber did this (they're scumbags, we get the idea already), but that a manager would press it (and in Canada) at personal risk of imprisonment, and that no action was taken about it (whether or not they later provided the data).
If you're trading in Canada, you're liable to their laws and they are able to seize related equipment and data with your co-operation or not, and performing a deliberate act with the express intention of removing said access can only be construed as obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court depending on the court order. It's not even "open to interpretation"... it's quite clear that the only reason to use a facility that cuts off the system should the police come knocking is to stop the police seeing things you don't want them to see but that they may well be otherwise entitled to see.
Uber are scumbags because courts like this allow them to be.
I hate to defend Apple (literally.. I do HATE to defend Apple), but:
"There is no one "right" answer to a question like this save the ones we collectively and imperfectly come to as a society. Absolutist assertions that it is either unbreakable, impenetrable encryption for all, or nothing, are false."
"Apple believes it is protecting freedom. It's wrong."
Well, that absolutist assertion seems like you have an answer in mind.
You're trying to mask it, but a backdoor is a backdoor. If Apple are capable of creating a version of the OS that will update over an existing version on a targeted iPhone and thus render the encryption on their iPhone moot - then there is NOTHING stopping a person at Apple from, say, reading the president's private bedroom photos from his iPhone.
You can say "it won't happen", you can say "nobody would do that", you can say "you just need to pick people carefully", etc. but the fact is that at the end of the day some small group of Apple employees have some method of access to every Apple device on the planet. To suggest that this could never be misused would be false.
As such, to not even have THE CAPABILITY is to render the possibility moot. No, we won't push out targeted firmware to an individual iPhone identified by law enforcement - we'll design systems such that we CAN'T EVEN DO THAT (i.e. one iPhone is no different to any other and can't be identified by such a system). That's how to secure your customers and your business. A kind of legal self-denial if you like. The best way to ensure you can't get drunk is to not have the alcohol in the house at all.
Your other arguments in that article are literal red herrings;
"Apple is welcome to use every legal mechanism possible to fight this court order â" that is their absolute right. But to start and grow their company in the United States, to exist here because of the fundamental environment we create for freedom and innovation, and then to act as if Apple is somehow divorced from the US and owes it nothing, even when ordered by a court to do so, is a puzzling and worrisome position."
So... because Fuck Yeah America! they are required to kowtow and not use a valid legal argument in a US court? I think that's what that article says there. If the US court wished to sanction them, they could and would. You could literally stop Apple operating overnight if the courts so determined that they were that non-compliant. But they presented an argument, which clearly won enough doubt to not push through such orders to being prosecutions for failing to comply. And the rest of the "because they're in the US, they should give us something" stuff is just a distraction based on national pride.
This is about the only thing Apple have ever done that I approve of. It shows that they have at least some semblance of a principle, and - amazingly - it would be much cheaper and easier to comply. They are literally costing themselves money to secure a freedom. That's the one good thing I've ever been able to say about Apple, ever.
And it is securing your freedom too. How? If a guy at Apple can do it, so can a guy at the NSA order him to do it and also to then never speak of it, and that guy at the NSA could easily be working for a foreign state, or to try to discredit the president, or be someone who wants to set you up, etc.
Literally, a dystopian state would love this... hey, just let me tap into everyone's iPad and iPhone, and by the way you cannot ever say a thing. If you haven't seen, powers - once established - are universally misused for a long time until they're brought back under control (if at all). Some councils in the UK are still using "anti-terror" legislation to get personal details on people who put the wrong bins out on the wrong days. I kid you not.
By not allowing the creep to start, publicly, visibly, legally, at great expense and when they could just kowtow, Apple has done more of a service in this small act than can be countered by stopping a terrorist.
Hate Apple products.
Hate Apple business tactics.
Hate Apple's complete lack of social responsibility.
Hate Apple design.
Their one redeeming feature: That they don't just make it easy for the FBI (or anyone else).
Tell them off and call them names for anything else, I'll be right there cheering you on. But insulting them because they won't deliberately weaken security just in case their users happen to be a terrorist? Yeah, that I won't just jump on board with.
A "sort by percent" column for achievements and a flag to silence notifications.
Are these really release notes for a big "preview" update, or did someone accidentally pull in two tiny little repo summaries for minuscule patches?
It gets me that people think this qualifies as a feature, especially given that almost every other achievement-based list on similar services lets you do this (hell, it's splatted over the front of my Steam profile for the first, and is a one-tick option box for the latter - and has been for... what? Possibly 10 years or more?).
And it CANNOT WORK DECENTLY WELL on what you know as a home broadband connection because you CANNOT buffer interactivity.
And of course there's a market. That's why Steam Link was sold for about 10GBP over Christmas - they were dumping stock of something that basically does exactly the same.
Dunno about you guys but my local McDonald's did this a few years ago, as have many others.
Massive touchscreens in the foyer, tap and order from the whole menu, then just wait for the guy to bring it out. Hell, it even tells you how many orders are in front of you, etc. and you can make every tiny change imaginable to the ingredients.
Sure, they still have kitchen staff (we're not suggesting automating the kitchens, right? That's just a food-safety nightmare waiting to happen and how do they clean themselves?). But they have JUST kitchen staff, who get a list, put the food on the tray and deal with the cooker alerts etc.
It's much faster and more efficient than any McDonald's I've ever used, you can order while ten people are dithering over what to have, you can even assign a seat and have it brought over to you. And, at the end of the day, it's the same food.
I've said for years that restaurants should do this - even posh ones. Tying up waiting staff with orders, corrections, menus, allergy queries etc. is daft when people are quite capable of doing all that themselves - sometimes before they've even sat down. And then BOTH of you have a cast-iron receipt of what was ordered and how. So long as the food delivered tallies, what does it matter?
"So what's in the sea bass?" "Press ingredients, ma'am".
"Can we split this bill?" "Press split bill, sir."
"Do you have any pork left?" "Only what the menu will let you select, sir".
If Jack-in-the-box have already trialled this I can't understand why they haven't been fitting it to all new stores and starting doing it for refurbishments. There's literally no reason not to, even if you don't replace ALL the staff immediately.
Indeed. I used to VPN over my internal Wifi that only I knew the password for.
WEP was cracked? Didn't matter.
VPN software was cracked? Didn't matter.
WPA was cracked? Didn't matter.
So long as they aren't ALL cracked at the same time, you're safe. And there was no measurable latency or other additions, but full end-to-end verification and encryption, TWICE. I used to game CS over it.
Give yourself enough layers and you don't have a window where you're vulnerable to compromise, whereas everyone just reliant on "WPA2 being secure" does. This gives you time to update, replace hardware, change settings, test if you're vulnerable, etc.
Don't give them ideas.
Because then some naming authority will get involved and you'll have the domain-name debacle all over again about "who owns the name Starbucks for Wifi worldwide".
"One of the key improvements in WPA3 will aim to solve a common security problem: open Wi-Fi networks. Seen in coffee shops and airports, open Wi-Fi networks are convenient but unencrypted, allowing anyone on the same network to intercept data sent from other devices. WPA3 employs individualized data encryption, which scramble the connection between each device on the network and the router, ensuring secrets are kept safe and sites that you visit haven't been manipulated"
Sure. But your computer will still not know that the CoffeeShop SSID that they're connecting to was the one the shop set up, though, will they? There's no exclusivity for SSIDs and if there was, it'd be a denial-of-service opportunity.
Once connected, and a secret shared, yes. But with no password the initial connection is still giving people a chance to shove you on THEIR connection rather than the one you think, and then you can be WPA3-authenticated to them rather than what you thought without having a clue.
Decapping a chip is difficult, expensive and not guaranteed. Most TPMs and security-chips are almost impossible to open without damage.
Go look at the arcade-ROM decapping efforts. Even 30-year-old ROMs have protections that mean some games are now permanently lost forever, and the ones that are successful rely on "seeing" (via X-Ray etc.) the data as a visible effect on the image. That doesn't work for anything modern at all, you'd need new kinds of instruments or something to measure the individual charge on an individual transistor from billions of them on a tiny sliver of silicon.
Modern chips, especially those designed to be secure and avoid tampering? Not a chance. Nobody has yet demonstrated an attack on a modern TPM chip like that, and the private keys aren't exactly just sitting there in plain-text even if you could.
And then updating for EVERY technology change, nm-advancement, etc.? Cost would not just be prohibitive but astronomical.
Do you believe that those 7800 devices a year are all just one read away from stopping a terrorist attack each? Highly unlikely. If anything one arrest could result in 20-30 devices, not even worrying about whether it was a drug-deal or a telecoms violation or whatever else the FBI might deal with.
The value just isn't there, even if the technology could exist.
To my knowledge, literally NO-ONE in the world has read a key from a physical iPhone security chip, for instance. There have been software flaws, and things found in publicly available firmware that are quickly patched out but even those don't cause the processor to magically give up all its private keys. That's not how those chips work. Even Apple themselves may not be able to do it (only replace the device in question and reset it, not bring across the private keys).
This is part of the "problem". The system is secure. And that means secure from all attackers, including the people who want access to the devices for legitimate reasons (e.g. the owners in some cases!). If it wasn't, it would be insecure, against both those categories of people, and thus not be fit for purpose.
Sure, at some point, someone will find a hole. And then the next round will devices will counter that. But the FBI expecting to have something that nobody else in the world has, possibly even the manufacturer, which can only be given by weakening the whole purpose of the system for everyone, and for it to be cost-effective, to handle a boat load of enquiries that they presumably have NO OTHER evidence for? That's just silly.
I'm sure if it was "go to war or not" territory, someone would find a way. But there, no expense is spared. As a run of the mill "let's see what this terrorist suspect texted via WhatsApp" enquiry? Not a chance.
If they COULD do this, they would be. And they'd be keeping very quiet about it. Because the second it was public, every new phone, chip and computer would be redesigned to stop it in the future.
With a movie you can buffer. You will be buffering for the first 10 seconds of so of content at least, and then any latency is swallowed by the buffer.
With a game... you can't buffer. It's like watching live TV.
I don't know if you've ever tried it, but Live TV is even buffered (e.g. BBC iPlayer is often a second or so out of sync with the TV broadcast). Things like TVPlayer.com... they can be 5-10 seconds out of whack. And they cut out A LOT.
A 10-second delay on your movie is invisible. A 100ms delay on your interactive game is VERY visible, especially if it comes and goes as your connection fades and improves. And you can't really buffer input / interactive content as that just makes things worse. Sometimes you even just "throw away" old data and pretend it didn't exist.
I stream all sorts. But streaming a game? No. There's a reason that even Steam Link says "use Ethernet, not Wifi". Unreliable delivery even across a local Wifi network (no Internet involved) is enough to throw out the user experience. Doing that over people's shared crappy broadband/routers/connections?
It's not even the same class of problem.
To be honest... their latency is going to be the least of your worries.
People are going to expect to play this on a device that isn't pushing input to the game directly, over their home wifi (still on 2.4GHz with loads of neighbours around), shared with the whole household, across their standard broadband, through the ISP and to the game servers.
From there, sure, the inter-gamer latency will basically be 0ms. But the latency from all that path will be horrible, variable, out of control of anybody by the user themselves (who won't care about that, they'll just know "it doesn't work well").
Hell, I rarely see a home router even capable of QoS, let alone one that's even got it turned on. Big sister loading up her YouTube makeup tutorial is going to make the game unplayable not just from a latency point of view, but sheer pressure on bandwidth, and the effect won't be "fast local display but laggy other players" but "complete breakdown of the video stream".
OnLive died for more than one reason. It's cheaper to just buy a gaming computer and game (or even just rent a computer directly) than they can offer. The latency sucks. It's highly dependent on good wifi, good local network, good connectivity to the cloud via your ISP.
Hell, for a silly multiplayer Java game I play, you can double just the game latency by browsing a website with lots of images on the shared 30Mbps connection. Until I put on QoS specifically for that game's ports, the girlfriend browsing Facebook could make my ping spike.
I'd hate to think what happens when you're streaming a video that basically can't be buffered at all on most random home's wifi full of devices all interfering and downloading at the same time.
Yep.
And if they have to have a dedicated card for each concurrent user, capable of playing the latest games, then you could easily buy a GPU for a home computer for the price that they'll need to pay + profit to do so.
Plus... what do you think is going to be required on, say, Christmas Day when everyone wants to play their new games and you've promise they all have a dedicated card? The capacity planning alone means you're basically into just-as-much as just buying a card per user anyway.
This is precisely the reason OnLive went bankrupt. You're paying to have a gaming-capable computer, in a datacentre, for each simultaneous user, ready to go, on-demand, 24 hours a day, and there's almost no way to scale that up without having a card-per-concurrent-user (in theory, there's no reason one GPU couldn't offer up half its cores to one user and half to another, but that's not what they are saying, and you'd need some SERIOUSLY expensive GPUs to be able to do that and still work for modern games).
It would be cheaper to just rent out to every user a full gaming machine and deliver it to their home, for the life of their subscription.
VNC wouldn't stand a chance.
But this is basically what Steam Link / In-Home Streaming is.
OnLive literally went bust trying to make this kind of thing work.
It's not new, or surprising, but it's not really what people want. I really *don't* want to stream games from a computer that someone else has total control over. Everything from monthly subscriptions, to losing all your games if you cut it, to massive peak-period performance hits, to poorer quality gaming (30ms is "nice", but most people will never be able to manage that and won't know why, and will then just blame the service).
Honestly, we've been able to do this for years in a variety of ways. But nobody is going to pay money to do that.
"The game streaming works by dedicating a GPU to each customer, so performance and frame rates should be pretty solid."
Then it's going to cost AT LEAST as much as a GPU, a computer, the cost of the game, the connectivity, and the associated hardware (at your end) overall. Or they either would be making a massive loss, or it would be shit.
Follow the links in the article and get to the place that actually sells the above "first 64-bit open-source RISC-V chip".
They tell you:
"In its standard configuration, before any third-party modifications or overclocking, the 64-bit, multi-core U45-MC Coreplex has four U54 CPUs and a single E51 CPU, each running at 1.5 GHz. SiFive said "
So, though it might be hard, it's not impossible at all. Someone's done it, in fact. And looking at any cheap laptop seller, you'll see 1.5GHz chips in there (even from Intel!).
So it certainly captures enough of the market to be viable. The other issues (of software compatibility, actual performance, power usage, security, etc.) are still to be beaten, but it looks viable to me.
With the right coding and effort, you could turn that chip into an fully-working Android-based device, for instance, and be open-source top-to-bottom.
I would make a conscious exception for army medics, especially those higher skilled like surgeons etc.. I don't imagine (though I'm not sure) that they are there to kill people.
But even then... they've basically chosen the job of a doctor/surgeon and then they are ordered to ignore the Hippocratic oath, because they then fail to attend to the enemy wounded too. I'm sure they look after prisoners (though there was little evidence of such at Guantanamo?), I'm sure they mend up their own people, and innocent civilians, but they also walk past enemy wounded/dying? And presumably if they stop to help, they'll be ordered to move on.
They are possibly the exception but then I don't get why they are an explicit part of one particular military rather than, say, a independent red-cross unit.
It still doesn't make sense to me. However you cook it, the morals that go with such a job should mean you avoid the military service. Anything else is hypocritical, not Hippocratical.
"moral" or "morale"?
To be honest, I can't quite work how they find people clever enough to do that kind of thing properly, who are dumb enough to want to do it.
"Protecting the nation" is all well and good but anyone with a brain should be able to tell that they go far, far beyond such a remit, into things that they really shouldn't.
I think the same about GCHQ etc. and even Turing (kind of a hero to me). You can romanticise it, and say how many lives they save, but to me that's marred by the freedoms they impinge upon in doing so, the tools they create (and leave behind) that are capable of much less moral actions, etc.
I'm probably not smart enough to work for such places, despite my education being in all kinds of related areas. But I'd have to refuse any kind of military service and/or spy work even if I was smart enough.
When you meet a guy who goes into the army because he failed school, sure, that's a good option for him... job security, a decent amount of respect and professionalism, transferable skills. It makes sense. But when you meet someone who obviously has a brain and would have been successful even if they hadn't chosen to be a high-ranking officer, you have to wonder what their motivation is. I've never really got to the bottom of it because those people I've met like that are quite cagey and tend to hide behind some argument about "service to the country" and so on.
I suppose the guys who invented the nuclear bomb would be no different. I just fail to see how you can get that far, be that deep-thinking, and not insert some sense of morality into your life.
And, more importantly, how do they handle those who do then start to question what they're doing? Is it literally just threats to make things worse for them if they don't? It's something I could never reconcile with the people I generally meet - either they're smart and have a good handle on precisely why that kind of thing is something they want to steer well clear of, or they're not.
Political colouration, etc. aside (which is really just pettiness... literally classing billions of people as "one of those two types of people"), how do intelligent people work in blind obedience to service to their nation?
"The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition."
Bit late to do anything about them if they are already in effect at that point.
I think that's the entire point of the protests.
The article is about copyright, but let's take patents.
Under your system, patents would never expire or come into the public domain. You'd still be paying Mr Fire (or his estate) for every fire made into perpetuity. And Mr Window. And Mr Garden Spade. Literally the cost of EVERYTHING you touch would increase overnight to pay patent royalties to someone who invented something 100 years ago, is dead and/or hasn't done a day's work since. This is apparently the bit you hate.
The same still applies for copyrights... on music, movies, characters, comics, sketches, poems, books, etc. You'd still be paying Mr Shakespeare 500 years later for the use of his material. Thus the price of everything you touch goes up. You literally can't do anything without some lawyer poking their head out of the woodwork and demanding their 1%. Said lawyer works for large faceless corporation that bought up family assets a hundred years ago and does nothing but ask people for money for using them into perpetuity.
What you're in fact suggesting is that people get a monopoly on everything they ever did, long after they are dead and gone. Schools would still be paying Chaucer's estate for the use of his works, there wouldn't be a play you could perform without paying money, there wouldn't be a book you could read, a painting you could see (have you SEEN the fuss over even postcards of things like the Mona Lisa, etc.?), a landmark you could look at (Eiffel Tower night displays are "copyright").
And the money would all be going to the lawyers-of-sons-of-sons-of-sons-of someone who once wrote a joke, for doing NOTHING. This is the kind of freeloading you appear to be against, no? People demanding money for something they never had any part in whatsoever? Isn't that worse than someone who wants to read a book written by a guy who died so long ago nobody even remembers who owns the rights?
Public domain is an inherent part of everyone's history. From music to books, movies to encyclopaedia - everything you do has been done, said and written about a thousand times before. And we don't want to get to a point where we have to pay EVERY person along the way, into perpetuity, for their tiniest of contributions.
What are the most expensive movies to buy? Disney. Why? Because they were made in the 1930's, and now just about anyone who has ever had a part in their making is long-dead. But the lawyers still want their cut of something that even their grandfather wouldn't have seen first time round, necessarily.
What you suggest basically results in creating a new type of mega-corporation that you have to pay for everything you do, and who do nothing to earn that. Literally, the pattern of your floorboards, the colour of your carpet, the shape of your biscuit tin. All these things are "uncopyrightable" / "unpatentable" / "untrademarkable" because they're obvious or already in the public domain. Going forward, removing that public domain part makes everything licensable, and therefore requiring a fee.
From someone in a country with proper gun control:
Looks like an assassination.
The guy is SO FAR from everything, he has no clue you're referring to him. He's opened his door, there's a bunch of bright lights all down the streets hundreds of yards away. People are yelling and shouting, he can't tell what's being said. Nobody is close enough to do anything BUT snipe him from a distance, so they can't judge what he's doing anyway.
Hint: Innocent people do things that you might not want them to do. "HEY YOU! DON'T MOVE!" (turns behind himself, turns back with his finger pointing to his chest, shakes head, shrugs shoulders, maybe takes a step or two back.)
Aggressive stance, my fucking arse, you can't see a thing and neither would the cop have (don't forget, you can analyse and replay!). Unless he clearly pulled an object and aimed, any other police force in the world would be knocking the shooter off active duty immediately and probably pressing charges / initiating internal action. There's literally no way to tell what's going on from that distance. There's no way a shot should even have been fired, even a warning shot, certainly not a killing shot.
I've seen UK police deal with the same - but actually a genuine shooter - situation in a residential area. They turn up. They're told there's hostages and a shooter. They clear the street, back further than those police cars are parked. And the knock on the door of the house. And they are by the door and up close unless they have specialist weaponry prepared way in advance (e.g. very prolonged incident). Nobody just pulls a pistol and shoots from that kind of range, you have no idea the guy is even the shooter and not a hostage or - gosh - random innocent civilian as in this case.
And you don't put people in the position where they have a choice about complying. You are feet from them, with a weapon, aimed at their body, and three others are walking up behind before they know what's going on. For God's sake, America, stop the shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude of your police.
Hell, let him get a shot off. Nobody's near, right? You're all behind cover. Let him actually fire, or turn back to the house before you think about pulling a trigger.
I literally cannot find bodycam footage of an armed incident with UK police that isn't close-up and personal. And for them, "armed" more usually means a guy with a knife, guns are rare so dealing with them is even more unusual and unexpected.
But you don't just shoot a guy from that range with any weapon... you have literally NO IDEA what he's actually doing. Horrible situation, to have to approach someone potentially dangerous? Gosh, if only we had a force of people expressly trained to do just that.
You guys SERIOUSLY need a full review of police procedure and re-training, with weapons taken from anyone who fails it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
That was: Suicide vests, height of multiple other attacks, knives, vehicles, potentially any other weapon, attacks on civilians actively in progress and confirmed, civilians trying to distract / fight the attackers, major incident, middle of central London. Three armed officers, in, within feet, close enough to touch them, take them all down, no police hurt, nobody else hurt except those with weapons.
"By law, the police shooting of suspects has to be independently investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission."
By law. For every single shot. You pull the trigger only to kill. That's it. A guy on a porch 100 yards away with nobody else visible isn't someone to kill without question.
Dunno what you teach your drivers over there, but there's generally regarded to be one lane, and multiple "overtaking lanes" in all the terminology for most of the countries I have seen driving-school things for. It has almost nothing to do with when you learned to drive unless you're positively ancient. You go into a "faster" lane only to overtake, then pull back in. All your reasoning is WHY you do that, but it's always been the rule of the road too.
If you're parallel-driving, you're an idiot. You're just blocking traffic. If you're going faster on the (passenger side) lanes, you're an idiot. If you're not actually overtaking in the (driver side) lanes, you're an idiot. Admit defeat, fall back, drop in 50 feet behind, what's the big deal? Don't block 2/3rds of the lanes between you and the other car who has no interest in what speed you're doing because HE'S not the one overtaking (or trying to) or in the wrong lane.
Hell, in my country, it's incredibly common to see a 4-lane motorway (freeway) with some idiot in the 3rd lane (i.e. should be overtaking TWO ENTIRE LANES of traffic) when there's nobody else anywhere near him. Everyone has to slow to his speed, bunch up, and try to squeeze past only via the "fastest" overtaking lane. How do you not notice you're a hazard? How do you not realise you're in the wrong when people flash/beep you and bunch up behind? How - once you have the first among-friends-anecdote about the dickhead in lane-3 - do you not think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't be doing that"?
If you want to reduce congestion, it's pretty easy. Smooth driving, look ahead. Leave yourself a gap. Leave that joining car a gap rather than fight (i.e. if both have to slow/speed/intrude to get into something that you could have shared / made clear for them). Drift between lanes (with appropriate signalling) rather than jerk between them. Remove the snap-judgement element, which is what makes drivers behind over-react for their own safety, which propagates backwards and starts causing problems (waves of slow-fast-slow-fast traffic with no obvious cause? Yeah, that's caused by idiots up ahead making rapid lane changes or fighting among themselves, they've done mathematical studies on it).
And, to be honest, for any significant distance on a motorway? Sit in the "slowest" lane, poodle along at "just" 60-70mph. You'll get there roughly the same time as the speeding idiot, you'll be less stressed, you have less to worry about and you can just slide around slow moving vehicles with ease and in your own time. "Cruise" control is appropriately named.
But, for sure, if you have to think about driving safely, or change how you go about driving because you read something on the Internet, you were an idiot before. What other stupid and inconsiderate things are you doing too?
Driving is actually easy, and motorway driving is actually quite relaxing, done right. Because there are no snap-judgements and "let's hope I react fast enough" if you drive properly, on a motorway there isn't a chance of a small child wandering across the road (but, hey, you can see so far in front you'd spot them anyway, right?).
The motorways of countries where road-laws are strict and people stick to them (e.g. Germany) are a joy to drive. Literally EVERYONE just moves over gently as soon as their manoeuvre is complete.
But if you have to THINK about how you drive, reason it out to yourself, take in information from other people to do so, you weren't paying attention in driving school, or you're an idiot that can't just look at the situation and say "Hold on a moment..."