For years now (decades) we've seen cases where a bunch of software engineers thought it would be "cool" to add a new feature in a piece of software, only to implement something insecurely and as a result compromise an entire package or platform. Slowly, oh so slowly, our industry has woken up to the wisdom of starting a design with security and then only adding features when we must, and when they can be shown to be secure.
Along comes the Internet of Things and suddenly it feels like the hardware industry thinks that it has been given a free pass to go and be utterly stupid all over again. I know it's only been a couple of years since the news broke, but if there is one thing that Edward Snowden taught the world, it's that we weren't being paranoid enough.
Back when appliances were relatively dumb, countries around the world came up with quality testing schemes to enable consumers to verify that a product they bought had been tested to a minimum range of safety requirements (for example, in the UK there is the Kitemark). We have already passed the point where we need a cyber equivalent.
Do readers think we'll ever get there? Or do you supposed that there is too much money being spent by lobbyists to ensure that it never happens?
Whilst a nice idea in principle, I think that you may have a flawed approach there.
You see, if the Remain campaign had won the popular vote, then there is no way on this earth that a 52/48 decision in favour of Remain would ever give the "Leave" vote a second crack at this, or a chance to "change their minds".
Under the illusion of "being certain" or "being reasonable" you are suggesting a mechanism to overturn a democratic process. The thing is, the UK signed up to a European *Economic* Community when the first vote was put to the people back in the 1970s. What then happened was that the EU went about granting itself more and more powers, went about turning a free trade area into a monetary and incrementally political union.
So it is entirely specious of you to argue that another vote is needed "just to make sure". We don't do that in General Elections and it wasn't done when the UK voted to join the EEC. No need for another one now.
I suppose that Microsoft released these figures to continue their message that adoption of Windows 10 devices goes according to plan. But if we do an "equivalent comparison", what does the story look like?
So for example, what percentage of iOS devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) remain on older OS releases after a new edition is published?
Instinct [as opposed to quotable fact] suggests that the adoption of W10 is actually underwhelming.
And the biggest issue is most definitely the complete lack of trust that most reluctant upgraders have with Microsoft themselves. I guess owners of PCs like to think of their PC as something that works for them, as opposed to it being a device which turns them into a product by stealth.
I can only hope that you *don't* realise the incredible danger in your comment. What you are saying is that the democratic process can (or should) be set aside if you don't like the result. That isn't just incredible, towering arrogance, it's the beginning of the slippery slope towards a totalitarian state.
There is a saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
I am sure that if you had the chance to ask any of history's worst dictators, most ruthless tyrants, they would all tell you that they believed in what they were doing. [ Likely because they were all sociopaths, or psychopaths, or both.
And: not "everybody" hopes that May will "do the sensible thing." 52% of the people who voted are expecting the Prime Minister to carry out her stated intention, which is to respect and honour a democratic vote and to invoke Article 50 and lead the UK out of the EU.
I can understand and respect the fact that it wasn't your wish to leave, but living in a democracy means that you won't get what you want all of the time. Whatever else, please don't think that it's OK to set aside the democratic will of a country just because you don't agree. That's how nations are destroyed and (civil) wars start.
Agree with everything you say, with one exception. It wasn't for the "BrExit" camp to have a post-referendum plan. That was the government's job. All the snide comments regarding the apparent vacuum are in fact a misdirected reflection of the fact that Cameron, the playground bully, got a bloody nose and then decided to run home to his Mummy.
If Cameron had said, *before* the referendum, that, "In the event that the country votes to leave the EU, I will stand aside to make way for a new Leader who can take on the Article 50 negotiations in good faith," then it would have been fair to expect the Leave camp to have a structure and plan in place. He said no such thing, so towering was his arrogance that he would win. He represented the sitting government of the day. It was his job to ensure a contingency plan was in place, but was so smug in the run-up that he had ministers saying, "There is no plan B".
... the piece in the Washington Post is long on opinion and *very* short on fact.
For example, the piece makes much of comments by Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that one third of the teaching staff in Edinburgh hold EU passports and are "very twitchy right now". Well, that's real science, right there, eh? I mean, that's an empirical survey if ever there was one.
What the British Government has said (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36916836) is that it wants and expects to protect the rights of EU workers currently living in Britain, but that such protections would be conditional upon EU countries providing the same protections for UK citizens living in the EU. That doesn't seem reasonable, but it doesn't explain the scaremongering attempted by the Washington Post.
I guess it is worth pointing out that President Obama and the US Administration were very much in favour of the UK remaining within the EU. Washington saw the UK membership of the EU as a lever it could apply to get the EU to go along with things like TTIP and joint military participation with operations like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In other words, you have to treat this article in exactly the same way that a scientist would treat a claim that some random sub-atomic particle could travel faster than the speed of light: look for substantiating evidence; look for corroboration; examine the sources of evidence; look at the statistical significance of the sampled data, and so on.
This rather shoddy article contains a lot of supposition, suggestion and conjecture, but it has been very selective in it's reporting of "facts".
Before Microsoft got their hands on Skype, the service was configured to use a central server to determine if your desired counter-party was on line, then the two end-points went through a handshake and all remaining communications were point-to-point.
After Microsoft got their hands on Skype, the initial call setup used a central server - and then the entire remainder of the conversation remains similarly routed through that central server, thereby allowing Microsoft to record the entire conversation.
Skype doesn't generate revenue, which means that the initial purchase was a loss-leader. Microsoft weren't trying to bring their own competition to market. There is nothing in the technology that they needed or wanted for their own business strategy. In other words, it's worth being very sceptical of Skype.
So why would they want to turn their attention back to the Linux client? Is it because the "bad guys" are using Linux and Microsoft want to remain in the middle of point-to-point conversations?
I'm sure that Skype is a very handy piece of software when you want to keep in touch with relatives who are miles away, but there are just too many inexplicable decisions being taken with it... What's that old saying: when something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Yes, I recall that comment from JMS. In Season 1 they had that black-market dealer that operated in the non-oxygen wing, the creature that looked a bit like a man-sized preying mantis. IIRC it looked to be based on anamatronics of some kind [as opposed to being a man in a suit] and although it did come across a bit clunky, I remember thinking that it was nice to see the show at least make the effort.
And if you think about the time this show was being recorded, the cost of computer time to render all that CGI would have been scary expensive. I'm not sure if it was true, but I read on a fan site that the early shows used a modified Cray Y-MP8 system, but that later seasons replaced that with a render farm built up of lots of individual systems taking the SETI@home approach and out-sourcing work frame-by-frame.
"Welcome home, Mr Garibaldi!!!"
The thing that made Babylon 5 stand out - especially given the vast amount of money being thrown at other contemporary sci-fi shows of the era, like Star TreK: Next Generation - was the passion that cast and crew had for the show and the respect they had for each other.
Over the course of five seasons, 110 episodes and a small collection of spin-off TV-Movies, we were all incredibly privileged to watch a collection of strangers come together, get to know each other, become friends, then absolutely fall in love with the show that they were making. Babylon 5 might have lacked for a lot of things, but never for the passion of what they were doing.
You don't have to be a sci-fi fan to see that.
And if, as we'd hope, Andreas and Richard and Michael and Jeff are all there waiting for him, I rather hope that Jerry's response, on hearing G'Kar's welcome, would respond in kind:
"Even for a Narn - he's nuts!"
We will remember your name - and cherish all that you left us. Rest in peace, Jerry.
The previous post offering the title "That Depends" is on the right track.
Some industry sectors have legal requirements to disclose technical failures that could impact their operating bottom line. For example, think about Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Other requirements are driven by locations - for example California was the first US State to require formal disclosure if a company lost unencrypted client data.
The bottom line is that, for a growing number of industry sectors, legislative jurisdictions and use cases, there is a legal requirement to make necessary disclosures and in a timely manner. In the case of some requirements [like SOX-404] there is the potential of jail time for company officials that fail to abide by the law.
Ultimately, it is the legal responsibility of the CEO of a [publicly listed] company to ensure that the company operations fully comply with all legal obligations at all times. Irrespective of whether or not a company unaware of it's obligations may end up breaking the law, a company that doesn't understand those obligations has a negligent CEO.
But how much of this analysis looked at the fact that if a doctor mis-diagnoses something, or misses something, they are immediately subject to massive lawsuits?
The litigation culture that pervades the medical profession, particularly in the US, makes it increasingly difficult for doctor to do their job properly, because if they deviate even slightly from "accepted practice" they end up served with a malpractice suit.
It is going to be fear of litigation, not poor IT, that drives the change in behaviour. That and the fact that a patient who can be sold care of some kind is considered a revenue-generator to be held on to. In other words, the healthcare system is no longer about the health of or care given to the patient, it's all about the relative profitability of the condition they bring.
This is what happens when you operate a health service on a financial model. Why are we surprised by this?
We already know, as a result of the US finding Osama Bin Laden, than those absolutely determined to do harm can find away around any time of security measures imposed by governments. So ultimately this will not target the factions in our world that are habitually used to justify draconian controls.
On the other hand, the imposition of one new control often prompts society to respond by developing alternate solutions. Breaking end-to-end encryption might be viable when entities use the same master keys over and over [i.e. the certificates used to set up SSL encryption through the asynchronous handshake during the session setup. However, this is only one means by which encryption can be activated.
Suppose 2 people want to use secure communications. They create an application that generates strings of random numbers which are printed on rice paper. Each person gets one identical copy of the booklet. Then, each time they want to set up secure communications, they use the next number on the pad. The moment the number is used, they eat that sheet of paper [hence use of rice paper].
As a technique it's not foolproof, but it would require physical access to one of the pads. If a session protocol was agreed that required each participant to disclose a key piece of information [securely, after setup] then each party would have a reasonable expectation of the identity of the other...
In other words, those who are determined to do the most harm to society will find a way to defeat this, whilst those who may be vulnerable to political interference, may be the most vulnerable. And yes, we could absolutely say, "Hang on, the UK doesn't victimise those with differing political views as long as they are peaceful" [and would be quite correct] but it's the danger of the approach being used elsewhere that would concern me. Well, that and the fact that this is another example of the presumption of innocence being disregarded...
Maybe we're thinking about this the wrong way. Verizon revenue is about $32 billion and their profits about $4.4 Billion. How many customers do they have? If we could get reliable data and do the math, it would show how much profit they are making per customer.
I'm not a US citizen so in a sense this is not directly relevant, but across the world the mobile telcos seem to be pushing up prices, charging huge roaming premiums and raking in massive profits, yet, curiously, it doesn't seem to be resulting in a better service...
Does anyone know how much it's costing them to maintain enough bandwidth? Is this a genuine "cost of doing business" or is this "squeeze 'em till the pips squeak"???
Matt has done OK in this short run - he's a big car fan and (as his piece on the Rolls in Episode 5 shows) he has a good sense of humour. I'm also a big fan of Chris Harris and desperately hope that the poor ratings don't dent his chances of having a crack at a second season. He's a gifted driver and lots of fun behind the wheel. Having said that, you could see that he was getting a bit irked at times, especially in some of the studio work for Extra Gear.
Sabine is batshit crazy and worth keeping for that reason alone. That she's also an exceptionally good driver is pure bonus.... And Rory Reid made Extra Gear his own.
So how about this:-
Keep Matt, Chris Harris, Sabine and Rory.
Sack Chris Evans, Eddie Jordan and "the Stig"...
Instead of "the Stig", let Sabine and HarrisMonkey take turns doing the hot laps...
Oh, just found another one... On March 19th 2014, Toyota was fined $1.2 Billion for concealing safety defects. Not sure if the level of the defect is remotely comparable with the other two listed above, but, again, the punishment is an order of magnitude greater than the Fiat-Chrysler sanction...
I'm interested to know if other readers are aware of or can point to information about similar motor vehicle damages being levied by the US Government over the years?
This is an entirely subjective statement - which is why I'm being cautious and inviting correction - but it strikes me that this is a pretty harsh fine and one specifically levied against a non-US company. Are there similar findings against US companies to compare with it?
For example: this is a case of a company mis-stating the emissions capabilities of vehicles and the fine is $10 Billion. When Ford fitted faulty Bridgestone tyres to their cars following the recall in 2000/2001, Bridgestone ended up paying Ford $240 Million, but I found no mention of a Federal fine. 271 people were killed by faulty tyres...
On July 26th 2015 The Department of Transport levied "Record Fines" against Fiat-Chrysler involving a *safety defect* and they were fined $105 Million.
On May 16th 2014 the Department of Transported levied a fine of $35 Milion against General Motors relating a failure of the manufacturer to provide a timely report of a safety defect to the Department of Transport.
Now, I'm not suggesting that what Volkswagen did was not totally and utterly wrong, but there are orders of magnitude differences between the fines being levied against VW and those of US or part-US companies. This looks a lot like some kind of shake-down or protectionist racket. Or did I miss other cases against other US or foreign companies that debunk this theory?
Genuinely not looking for a flame-war here, not trying to troll. But very interested to know if the community sees this as a consistently applied set of punishments or not?
I agree with you. But I think your mention of Afghanistan and Iraq is crucial for a different reason. Personally, whilst I would deeply, deeply regret the loss of life in a space program, it seems to me to be far less disagreeable to suffer loss in the pursuit of science and achievements for all mankind than it does to lose life in trying to blow the sh1t out of each-other over tired political idealogies and myopic dogmas. As long as science doesn't discard or disrespect life by subjecting people to unacceptable risks, that is.
Let me put it to you a slightly different way... Suppose you were the President of the United States [hey, congrats on that, by the way...] and I offered to give you say $250 Billion dollars. You could either spend it on the science, technology and development to set up a manned colony on Mars, or you could spend it prosecuting wars in say Afghanistan and Iraq. Your choice. What would you choose?
I'm kinda hoping you'd go for the first first choice...
Thank you for the clarification - I hadn't seen that. Although Musk does struggle to contain his own excitement from time to time... he is not someone to back down from the challenge. Will he deliver by 2025? Don't know. Am I happy that he's even trying? You betcha.
It's odd, isn't it, that in the decades after NASAs Moon Program came to an end, that the Agency became seen as an expensive dinosaur. Musk's approach and SpaceX and their ability to deliver has re-ignited the public's interest in and enthusiasm for space exploration. Are their other things we could and should be working on? Yes, of course. But the sheer scale of ambition of a space program captures imagination in a way that many other projects simply can't hope to match.
And once we get kids hooked on the STEM principles, we can always encourage them to diversify into other things.
OK, that's entirely fair. I didn't understand the previously expressed viewpoint, and I would completely agree with you if anyone capitalised on the excitement regarding a Mars mission to knowingly place volunteers in a position of danger. That would be callous and, IMHO, tantamount to murder.
But in everything that we've seen from Elon Musk and SpaceX so far, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such an approach would be acceptable. In my earlier post I suggested that long-term survival on Mars is going to require quite a delivery of equipment and material, which itself would require multiple rockets and landing attempts. Now, whilst it would be possible to put a large amount in a single trans-shipment, risk management suggests that it might be better to send multiple rockets and to aim to land them in the same way that he has so successfully returned 1st stages to "Of Course I Still Love You" in the Atlantic.
I can only hope - obviously I have nothing more to go on that opinion - that Musk would not attempt a human transfer to Mars until he felt confident that the crew would stand a good chance of survival. After all, if his attitude was any less risk averse, surely he'd be flying a crew in the Dragon capsule by now, right?
I guess at the end of the day we'll just have to wait for a serious announcement of readiness and, at that point, take an informed view of the risks of such a mission... in exactly the same way that we would hope a potential crew would.
It's a pretty cool time to be alive. Although I'd kinda like someone to invent hyperdrives already...:)
Would that require some form of conscription or force-against-wishes type of arrangement? I ask because I wonder if you would be happy or happier if everyone attempting a trip to Mars was completely and undeniably a volunteer? Would that make a difference given your concern?
Or do you believe that even volunteers would be attempting the trip due to some kind of false hope or duplicitous misdirection? Just trying to better understand your underlying concern...
I guess that when you mention the genocide that took place when Europeans reached what is now the United States, the you refer to the treatment of the Native American Indians?
Two observations to make on that front:-
First, that our society today is far, far removed from the one that existed then. Our treatment of fellow human beings is still far from perfect, but way, *way* better than we had then...
Secondly, the genocide was against a people already native when the Europeans arrived. For us to repeat a similar genocide on Mars, wouldn't there have to be a Martian civilisation there to fall victim to such an act? As best as I'm aware, there is no life on Mars...
Sincerely not trying to troll you here, but just to better understand the concern you raise...
Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.
Expect a first phase consisting of several supply rockets with prefabs, equipment and tools. Expect a degree of heavy duty robotics to help with fabrication. Expect a *lot* of solar panels, plus of course Tesla battery packs... Most of this SpaceX could do today, with the exception maybe the heavy robotics that might be needed. Maybe we could use Waldo's instead.
The real challenge, as you point out, will be if we want to return. Ideally we would need Mars to provide the fuel for that, but we would still need to lift all the processing equipment there in order to prepare it.
But let's be honest: so far Musk has shown a *much* better rate of learning than any nation-state space program. Who would you bet on to get there first?
Slashdot Mirror
For years now (decades) we've seen cases where a bunch of software engineers thought it would be "cool" to add a new feature in a piece of software, only to implement something insecurely and as a result compromise an entire package or platform. Slowly, oh so slowly, our industry has woken up to the wisdom of starting a design with security and then only adding features when we must, and when they can be shown to be secure.
Along comes the Internet of Things and suddenly it feels like the hardware industry thinks that it has been given a free pass to go and be utterly stupid all over again. I know it's only been a couple of years since the news broke, but if there is one thing that Edward Snowden taught the world, it's that we weren't being paranoid enough.
Back when appliances were relatively dumb, countries around the world came up with quality testing schemes to enable consumers to verify that a product they bought had been tested to a minimum range of safety requirements (for example, in the UK there is the Kitemark). We have already passed the point where we need a cyber equivalent.
Do readers think we'll ever get there? Or do you supposed that there is too much money being spent by lobbyists to ensure that it never happens?
Whilst a nice idea in principle, I think that you may have a flawed approach there.
You see, if the Remain campaign had won the popular vote, then there is no way on this earth that a 52/48 decision in favour of Remain would ever give the "Leave" vote a second crack at this, or a chance to "change their minds".
Under the illusion of "being certain" or "being reasonable" you are suggesting a mechanism to overturn a democratic process. The thing is, the UK signed up to a European *Economic* Community when the first vote was put to the people back in the 1970s. What then happened was that the EU went about granting itself more and more powers, went about turning a free trade area into a monetary and incrementally political union.
So it is entirely specious of you to argue that another vote is needed "just to make sure". We don't do that in General Elections and it wasn't done when the UK voted to join the EEC. No need for another one now.
I suppose that Microsoft released these figures to continue their message that adoption of Windows 10 devices goes according to plan. But if we do an "equivalent comparison", what does the story look like?
So for example, what percentage of iOS devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) remain on older OS releases after a new edition is published?
Instinct [as opposed to quotable fact] suggests that the adoption of W10 is actually underwhelming.
And the biggest issue is most definitely the complete lack of trust that most reluctant upgraders have with Microsoft themselves. I guess owners of PCs like to think of their PC as something that works for them, as opposed to it being a device which turns them into a product by stealth.
Very Sorry, AC, I honestly had not come across any evidence of Cameron saying that he would stand down if he lost.
Golly, I reckon that if more people had been aware of that, even more would have voted for exit than the 52% majority...
tsa,
I can only hope that you *don't* realise the incredible danger in your comment. What you are saying is that the democratic process can (or should) be set aside if you don't like the result. That isn't just incredible, towering arrogance, it's the beginning of the slippery slope towards a totalitarian state.
There is a saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
I am sure that if you had the chance to ask any of history's worst dictators, most ruthless tyrants, they would all tell you that they believed in what they were doing. [ Likely because they were all sociopaths, or psychopaths, or both.
And: not "everybody" hopes that May will "do the sensible thing." 52% of the people who voted are expecting the Prime Minister to carry out her stated intention, which is to respect and honour a democratic vote and to invoke Article 50 and lead the UK out of the EU.
I can understand and respect the fact that it wasn't your wish to leave, but living in a democracy means that you won't get what you want all of the time. Whatever else, please don't think that it's OK to set aside the democratic will of a country just because you don't agree. That's how nations are destroyed and (civil) wars start.
Hoofie,
Agree with everything you say, with one exception. It wasn't for the "BrExit" camp to have a post-referendum plan. That was the government's job. All the snide comments regarding the apparent vacuum are in fact a misdirected reflection of the fact that Cameron, the playground bully, got a bloody nose and then decided to run home to his Mummy.
If Cameron had said, *before* the referendum, that, "In the event that the country votes to leave the EU, I will stand aside to make way for a new Leader who can take on the Article 50 negotiations in good faith," then it would have been fair to expect the Leave camp to have a structure and plan in place. He said no such thing, so towering was his arrogance that he would win. He represented the sitting government of the day. It was his job to ensure a contingency plan was in place, but was so smug in the run-up that he had ministers saying, "There is no plan B".
His mistake.
That doesn't seem *unreasonable*. Doh.
... the piece in the Washington Post is long on opinion and *very* short on fact.
For example, the piece makes much of comments by Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that one third of the teaching staff in Edinburgh hold EU passports and are "very twitchy right now". Well, that's real science, right there, eh? I mean, that's an empirical survey if ever there was one.
What the British Government has said (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36916836) is that it wants and expects to protect the rights of EU workers currently living in Britain, but that such protections would be conditional upon EU countries providing the same protections for UK citizens living in the EU. That doesn't seem reasonable, but it doesn't explain the scaremongering attempted by the Washington Post.
I guess it is worth pointing out that President Obama and the US Administration were very much in favour of the UK remaining within the EU. Washington saw the UK membership of the EU as a lever it could apply to get the EU to go along with things like TTIP and joint military participation with operations like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In other words, you have to treat this article in exactly the same way that a scientist would treat a claim that some random sub-atomic particle could travel faster than the speed of light: look for substantiating evidence; look for corroboration; examine the sources of evidence; look at the statistical significance of the sampled data, and so on.
This rather shoddy article contains a lot of supposition, suggestion and conjecture, but it has been very selective in it's reporting of "facts".
Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
Before Microsoft got their hands on Skype, the service was configured to use a central server to determine if your desired counter-party was on line, then the two end-points went through a handshake and all remaining communications were point-to-point.
After Microsoft got their hands on Skype, the initial call setup used a central server - and then the entire remainder of the conversation remains similarly routed through that central server, thereby allowing Microsoft to record the entire conversation.
Skype doesn't generate revenue, which means that the initial purchase was a loss-leader. Microsoft weren't trying to bring their own competition to market. There is nothing in the technology that they needed or wanted for their own business strategy. In other words, it's worth being very sceptical of Skype.
So why would they want to turn their attention back to the Linux client? Is it because the "bad guys" are using Linux and Microsoft want to remain in the middle of point-to-point conversations?
I'm sure that Skype is a very handy piece of software when you want to keep in touch with relatives who are miles away, but there are just too many inexplicable decisions being taken with it... What's that old saying: when something looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Yes, I recall that comment from JMS. In Season 1 they had that black-market dealer that operated in the non-oxygen wing, the creature that looked a bit like a man-sized preying mantis. IIRC it looked to be based on anamatronics of some kind [as opposed to being a man in a suit] and although it did come across a bit clunky, I remember thinking that it was nice to see the show at least make the effort.
And if you think about the time this show was being recorded, the cost of computer time to render all that CGI would have been scary expensive. I'm not sure if it was true, but I read on a fan site that the early shows used a modified Cray Y-MP8 system, but that later seasons replaced that with a render farm built up of lots of individual systems taking the SETI@home approach and out-sourcing work frame-by-frame.
"Welcome home, Mr Garibaldi!!!" The thing that made Babylon 5 stand out - especially given the vast amount of money being thrown at other contemporary sci-fi shows of the era, like Star TreK: Next Generation - was the passion that cast and crew had for the show and the respect they had for each other. Over the course of five seasons, 110 episodes and a small collection of spin-off TV-Movies, we were all incredibly privileged to watch a collection of strangers come together, get to know each other, become friends, then absolutely fall in love with the show that they were making. Babylon 5 might have lacked for a lot of things, but never for the passion of what they were doing. You don't have to be a sci-fi fan to see that. And if, as we'd hope, Andreas and Richard and Michael and Jeff are all there waiting for him, I rather hope that Jerry's response, on hearing G'Kar's welcome, would respond in kind: "Even for a Narn - he's nuts!" We will remember your name - and cherish all that you left us. Rest in peace, Jerry.
The previous post offering the title "That Depends" is on the right track.
Some industry sectors have legal requirements to disclose technical failures that could impact their operating bottom line. For example, think about Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Other requirements are driven by locations - for example California was the first US State to require formal disclosure if a company lost unencrypted client data.
The bottom line is that, for a growing number of industry sectors, legislative jurisdictions and use cases, there is a legal requirement to make necessary disclosures and in a timely manner. In the case of some requirements [like SOX-404] there is the potential of jail time for company officials that fail to abide by the law.
Ultimately, it is the legal responsibility of the CEO of a [publicly listed] company to ensure that the company operations fully comply with all legal obligations at all times. Irrespective of whether or not a company unaware of it's obligations may end up breaking the law, a company that doesn't understand those obligations has a negligent CEO.
Here be dragons. Tread carefully!
But how much of this analysis looked at the fact that if a doctor mis-diagnoses something, or misses something, they are immediately subject to massive lawsuits?
The litigation culture that pervades the medical profession, particularly in the US, makes it increasingly difficult for doctor to do their job properly, because if they deviate even slightly from "accepted practice" they end up served with a malpractice suit.
It is going to be fear of litigation, not poor IT, that drives the change in behaviour. That and the fact that a patient who can be sold care of some kind is considered a revenue-generator to be held on to. In other words, the healthcare system is no longer about the health of or care given to the patient, it's all about the relative profitability of the condition they bring.
This is what happens when you operate a health service on a financial model. Why are we surprised by this?
We already know, as a result of the US finding Osama Bin Laden, than those absolutely determined to do harm can find away around any time of security measures imposed by governments. So ultimately this will not target the factions in our world that are habitually used to justify draconian controls. On the other hand, the imposition of one new control often prompts society to respond by developing alternate solutions. Breaking end-to-end encryption might be viable when entities use the same master keys over and over [i.e. the certificates used to set up SSL encryption through the asynchronous handshake during the session setup. However, this is only one means by which encryption can be activated. Suppose 2 people want to use secure communications. They create an application that generates strings of random numbers which are printed on rice paper. Each person gets one identical copy of the booklet. Then, each time they want to set up secure communications, they use the next number on the pad. The moment the number is used, they eat that sheet of paper [hence use of rice paper]. As a technique it's not foolproof, but it would require physical access to one of the pads. If a session protocol was agreed that required each participant to disclose a key piece of information [securely, after setup] then each party would have a reasonable expectation of the identity of the other... In other words, those who are determined to do the most harm to society will find a way to defeat this, whilst those who may be vulnerable to political interference, may be the most vulnerable. And yes, we could absolutely say, "Hang on, the UK doesn't victimise those with differing political views as long as they are peaceful" [and would be quite correct] but it's the danger of the approach being used elsewhere that would concern me. Well, that and the fact that this is another example of the presumption of innocence being disregarded...
Maybe we're thinking about this the wrong way. Verizon revenue is about $32 billion and their profits about $4.4 Billion. How many customers do they have? If we could get reliable data and do the math, it would show how much profit they are making per customer.
I'm not a US citizen so in a sense this is not directly relevant, but across the world the mobile telcos seem to be pushing up prices, charging huge roaming premiums and raking in massive profits, yet, curiously, it doesn't seem to be resulting in a better service...
Does anyone know how much it's costing them to maintain enough bandwidth? Is this a genuine "cost of doing business" or is this "squeeze 'em till the pips squeak"???
Matt has done OK in this short run - he's a big car fan and (as his piece on the Rolls in Episode 5 shows) he has a good sense of humour. I'm also a big fan of Chris Harris and desperately hope that the poor ratings don't dent his chances of having a crack at a second season. He's a gifted driver and lots of fun behind the wheel. Having said that, you could see that he was getting a bit irked at times, especially in some of the studio work for Extra Gear. Sabine is batshit crazy and worth keeping for that reason alone. That she's also an exceptionally good driver is pure bonus.... And Rory Reid made Extra Gear his own. So how about this:- Keep Matt, Chris Harris, Sabine and Rory. Sack Chris Evans, Eddie Jordan and "the Stig"... Instead of "the Stig", let Sabine and HarrisMonkey take turns doing the hot laps...
It's the most significant point of difference...
Oh, just found another one... On March 19th 2014, Toyota was fined $1.2 Billion for concealing safety defects. Not sure if the level of the defect is remotely comparable with the other two listed above, but, again, the punishment is an order of magnitude greater than the Fiat-Chrysler sanction...
I'm interested to know if other readers are aware of or can point to information about similar motor vehicle damages being levied by the US Government over the years?
This is an entirely subjective statement - which is why I'm being cautious and inviting correction - but it strikes me that this is a pretty harsh fine and one specifically levied against a non-US company. Are there similar findings against US companies to compare with it?
For example: this is a case of a company mis-stating the emissions capabilities of vehicles and the fine is $10 Billion. When Ford fitted faulty Bridgestone tyres to their cars following the recall in 2000/2001, Bridgestone ended up paying Ford $240 Million, but I found no mention of a Federal fine. 271 people were killed by faulty tyres...
On July 26th 2015 The Department of Transport levied "Record Fines" against Fiat-Chrysler involving a *safety defect* and they were fined $105 Million.
On May 16th 2014 the Department of Transported levied a fine of $35 Milion against General Motors relating a failure of the manufacturer to provide a timely report of a safety defect to the Department of Transport.
Now, I'm not suggesting that what Volkswagen did was not totally and utterly wrong, but there are orders of magnitude differences between the fines being levied against VW and those of US or part-US companies. This looks a lot like some kind of shake-down or protectionist racket. Or did I miss other cases against other US or foreign companies that debunk this theory?
Genuinely not looking for a flame-war here, not trying to troll. But very interested to know if the community sees this as a consistently applied set of punishments or not?
I agree with you. But I think your mention of Afghanistan and Iraq is crucial for a different reason. Personally, whilst I would deeply, deeply regret the loss of life in a space program, it seems to me to be far less disagreeable to suffer loss in the pursuit of science and achievements for all mankind than it does to lose life in trying to blow the sh1t out of each-other over tired political idealogies and myopic dogmas. As long as science doesn't discard or disrespect life by subjecting people to unacceptable risks, that is.
Let me put it to you a slightly different way... Suppose you were the President of the United States [hey, congrats on that, by the way...] and I offered to give you say $250 Billion dollars. You could either spend it on the science, technology and development to set up a manned colony on Mars, or you could spend it prosecuting wars in say Afghanistan and Iraq. Your choice. What would you choose?
I'm kinda hoping you'd go for the first first choice...
Thank you for the clarification - I hadn't seen that. Although Musk does struggle to contain his own excitement from time to time... he is not someone to back down from the challenge. Will he deliver by 2025? Don't know. Am I happy that he's even trying? You betcha.
It's odd, isn't it, that in the decades after NASAs Moon Program came to an end, that the Agency became seen as an expensive dinosaur. Musk's approach and SpaceX and their ability to deliver has re-ignited the public's interest in and enthusiasm for space exploration. Are their other things we could and should be working on? Yes, of course. But the sheer scale of ambition of a space program captures imagination in a way that many other projects simply can't hope to match.
And once we get kids hooked on the STEM principles, we can always encourage them to diversify into other things.
OK, that's entirely fair. I didn't understand the previously expressed viewpoint, and I would completely agree with you if anyone capitalised on the excitement regarding a Mars mission to knowingly place volunteers in a position of danger. That would be callous and, IMHO, tantamount to murder.
:)
But in everything that we've seen from Elon Musk and SpaceX so far, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such an approach would be acceptable. In my earlier post I suggested that long-term survival on Mars is going to require quite a delivery of equipment and material, which itself would require multiple rockets and landing attempts. Now, whilst it would be possible to put a large amount in a single trans-shipment, risk management suggests that it might be better to send multiple rockets and to aim to land them in the same way that he has so successfully returned 1st stages to "Of Course I Still Love You" in the Atlantic.
I can only hope - obviously I have nothing more to go on that opinion - that Musk would not attempt a human transfer to Mars until he felt confident that the crew would stand a good chance of survival. After all, if his attitude was any less risk averse, surely he'd be flying a crew in the Dragon capsule by now, right?
I guess at the end of the day we'll just have to wait for a serious announcement of readiness and, at that point, take an informed view of the risks of such a mission... in exactly the same way that we would hope a potential crew would.
It's a pretty cool time to be alive. Although I'd kinda like someone to invent hyperdrives already...
Um, "to send people"?
Would that require some form of conscription or force-against-wishes type of arrangement? I ask because I wonder if you would be happy or happier if everyone attempting a trip to Mars was completely and undeniably a volunteer? Would that make a difference given your concern?
Or do you believe that even volunteers would be attempting the trip due to some kind of false hope or duplicitous misdirection? Just trying to better understand your underlying concern...
I guess that when you mention the genocide that took place when Europeans reached what is now the United States, the you refer to the treatment of the Native American Indians?
Two observations to make on that front:-
First, that our society today is far, far removed from the one that existed then. Our treatment of fellow human beings is still far from perfect, but way, *way* better than we had then...
Secondly, the genocide was against a people already native when the Europeans arrived. For us to repeat a similar genocide on Mars, wouldn't there have to be a Martian civilisation there to fall victim to such an act? As best as I'm aware, there is no life on Mars...
Sincerely not trying to troll you here, but just to better understand the concern you raise...
Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.
Expect a first phase consisting of several supply rockets with prefabs, equipment and tools. Expect a degree of heavy duty robotics to help with fabrication. Expect a *lot* of solar panels, plus of course Tesla battery packs... Most of this SpaceX could do today, with the exception maybe the heavy robotics that might be needed. Maybe we could use Waldo's instead.
The real challenge, as you point out, will be if we want to return. Ideally we would need Mars to provide the fuel for that, but we would still need to lift all the processing equipment there in order to prepare it.
But let's be honest: so far Musk has shown a *much* better rate of learning than any nation-state space program. Who would you bet on to get there first?