. This drivel makes the Ed Stone look like Saatchi and Saatchi at their laser focussed best.
.
Had the pleasure of talking to someone who had never seen or heard of the Edstone the other day, and it brought back many a nostalgic feeling at what was, I believe, the primary amusing moment of the GE campaign. As disappointing as the result will have been for them, I'd hope even Labour supporters could find the comedy in that chunk of stone, it's vacuous slogans, the deadeyed witnesses in the pictures, inane plan to put it in downing street, and even its aftermath of not being properly declared as expenditure. Good times, back when politics was fun.
Barcelona will still go ahead, but I get the feeling its days are numbered, it's at the wrong time of year for Samsung, HTC, Sony and all of the Chinese brands, smartphone sales are still booming in Asia while they have plateaued in Europe and we don't really have a Europe based smartphone manufacturer now that Sony Ericsson and Nokia no longer exist (they used to hold 60% market share between them at one point).
They are doing one in San Francisco too, in September.
We tried to get a deal done with the Spanish government and the Barcelona MWC people. They were not exactly entrepreneurial or far-sighted - we had so many painful meetings before just giving up. I am not surprised GSMA are sniffing around elsewhere, though I think they are contracted to Barcelona for a few more years.
All the European companies are now licensors to the manufacturers. You should watch out for this Ericsson spin-out:
I think the GSMA are contracted to 2020, I personally don't think they will renew with Barcelona and hold a much smaller event London or Berlin with a concentration on connected devices, home automation and automotive advancement, both cities where there are thousands of companies involved rather than Barcelona which doesn't have anywhere near the same industries.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
Holy cow, when someone posted the text from the second picture yesterday I thought they were taking the mick. It's pure gibberish and he actually said it.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
I've just realised that 'cyber physical systems' might mean teledildonics.
If you don't want to sleep, imagine Corbyn, Abbott and teledildonics.
Word of the day.
So the Internet of Things means that you can pre-shag the missus while still on the train? Bona!
It also means that her dildo is transmitting usage patterns back to its manufacturer for them to build up a marketing database - including ambient temperature and intensity settings.
I am reminded of Brown in one of the 2010 town halls when in between berating an obviouly Labour leaning anesthesiologist about how she was "quite wrong" he started to rant about "digital manufacturing". I remember hoping that someone would ask him "what is digital manufacturing"?
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
Don’t say: “Wait, there was a third industrial revolution?”
Hee
So this is something the electorate is worried about? Oh, totally. Much more so than Brexit, or the NHS, or affordable living, or the snoopers’ charter, or Labour providing any sort of meaningfully relevant opposition to the government at a time when we need it most
I've just realised that 'cyber physical systems' might mean teledildonics.
If you don't want to sleep, imagine Corbyn, Abbott and teledildonics.
Word of the day.
So the Internet of Things means that you can pre-shag the missus while still on the train? Bona!
It also means that her dildo is transmitting usage patterns back to its manufacturer for them to build up a marketing database - including ambient temperature and intensity settings.
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
I guess if you timed it right you'd give the National Grid guys palpitations and probably get brown- or black-outs. RCS might know more.
I've just realised that 'cyber physical systems' might mean teledildonics.
If you don't want to sleep, imagine Corbyn, Abbott and teledildonics.
Word of the day.
So the Internet of Things means that you can pre-shag the missus while still on the train? Bona!
It also means that her dildo is transmitting usage patterns back to its manufacturer for them to build up a marketing database - including ambient temperature and intensity settings.
Barcelona will still go ahead, but I get the feeling its days are numbered, it's at the wrong time of year for Samsung, HTC, Sony and all of the Chinese brands, smartphone sales are still booming in Asia while they have plateaued in Europe and we don't really have a Europe based smartphone manufacturer now that Sony Ericsson and Nokia no longer exist (they used to hold 60% market share between them at one point).
They are doing one in San Francisco too, in September.
We tried to get a deal done with the Spanish government and the Barcelona MWC people. They were not exactly entrepreneurial or far-sighted - we had so many painful meetings before just giving up. I am not surprised GSMA are sniffing around elsewhere, though I think they are contracted to Barcelona for a few more years.
All the European companies are now licensors to the manufacturers. You should watch out for this Ericsson spin-out:
I think the GSMA are contracted to 2020, I personally don't think they will renew with Barcelona and hold a much smaller event London or Berlin with a concentration on connected devices, home automation and automotive advancement, both cities where there are thousands of companies involved rather than Barcelona which doesn't have anywhere near the same industries.
Yep - we were trying to pitch them to create a high-tech hub around Barcelona to create a larger local base, but the whole Catalonia/Spain thing got in the way along with the fact so many MWC people there are functionaries. We kept having the same meetings with different people, so just gave up. It's a shame because we had some really good buy-in from various companies in Europe, the US and Asia. Never mind - it was good to hang out in Barcelona and Madrid a few times!
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
I have a little device that (I think) does that (creates a very small EMP) to keep rodents away.
And think we used to take the piss out of Ed for his nonsense about predators, predistribution and judge led inquiries, but this is another level of prat-iery.
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
For hotter tea you need higher atmospheric pressure. (I think)
Opening myself to psychoanalysis or possible incarceration in an oubliette, I ask: why do those Corbyn statements, if statements they be, remind me of Prince Charles?
I've looked at the Wikipedia entry for Cyber-physical systems and basically it's just a tarted-up, more highly integrated Internet of Things.
So a) we have a Wikipedia article giving a proprietorial definition of something for which there is a general article (the Internet of Things), and b) a leader of the opposition willing to parrot stuff he doesn't understand.
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
I have a little device that (I think) does that (creates a very small EMP) to keep rodents away.
The trick to the nasty stuff is feedback - observe the result of your action and reinforce it. effectively you target the resonant frequency of a system and tune your attack to find the optimum feedback loop.
Opening myself to psychoanalysis or possible incarceration in an oubliette, I ask: why do those Corbyn statements, if statements they be, remind me of Prince Charles?
Errr, something to do with a dim bulb pretending to be smarter than he is by regurgitating the technobabble that was used by the last person he spoke to?
Industry 4.0 is big in Europe, particularly in Germany. In France, they get 140% capital allowance for every €1 spent as investment.
There was an exhibition at the NEC 2 weeks ago on smart factories but the awareness is very little in Britain. Maybe because our manufacturing is relatively backward.
God we haven't had a good old fashioned let's laugh at Jeremy Corbyn thread for ages. I've missed it. Politics has been way too serious of late.
I think a Gordon Brown is shite thread is overdue......although jezza is prompting a reappraisal there perhaps in relative terms 1+
What about starting a new series of re-launching Corbyn, just like they did with Brown? Or is this a re-launch of Corbyn? If yes then we need to start numbering them.
A more fun version would be get control of enough kettles, ovens etc and then setup oscillations in the electrical supply infrastructure, by using on/off to create and then increase instability.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
For hotter tea you need higher atmospheric pressure. (I think)
Opening myself to psychoanalysis or possible incarceration in an oubliette, I ask: why do those Corbyn statements, if statements they be, remind me of Prince Charles?
Charles talks to plants and Corbyn talks to manufacturing plants?
Opening myself to psychoanalysis or possible incarceration in an oubliette, I ask: why do those Corbyn statements, if statements they be, remind me of Prince Charles?
Errr, something to do with a dim bulb pretending to be smarter than he is by regurgitating the technobabble that was used by the last person he spoke to?
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
I somehow doubt Corbyn really understand the internet of things. Jam making perhaps, but I somehow doubt he is down with the IoT. I look forward to him being asked about it.
Of the three Cabinet ministers responsible for Brexit — David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox — the Ryanair boss said: “If their IQ was one point lower they’d be plants”.
Here's a thought: every time you cycle an electrical appliance (OK, switch it on and off) you create a very small EMP. What happens if you switch *all* the electrical appliances in the UK on and off very rapidly (tens of times a second). Do you fuse the houses, blow the substation transformers, melt the power stations? Or do you just get slightly hotter tea? I vote we put it to an experiment!
Well. since they are AC, electrical appliances like lightbulbs and kettles are already switching on and off 100 times a second.
If you suddenly add load (everyone turns on their kettle in the adverts) the grid slows down a bit unless they add more generating capacity and speed it up again
It only has to average 50Hz over the day, not every instant.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
I've just realised that 'cyber physical systems' might mean teledildonics.
If you don't want to sleep, imagine Corbyn, Abbott and teledildonics.
Word of the day.
So the Internet of Things means that you can pre-shag the missus while still on the train? Bona!
It also means that her dildo is transmitting usage patterns back to its manufacturer for them to build up a marketing database - including ambient temperature and intensity settings.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
If the EU thinks it will damage the UK, it may discover that two can play at that game. As many others have discovered to their cost when threatening these islands in the past.
I have no doubt in my mind which one will come out the victor in the long term.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
I would agree, except ...
... there's money in the IoT. Someone's got to write the software and design the chips.
If they each lend O'Leary one IQ point, would they all four be plants together, or could they pool their intelligence to make an imbecile?
Yeah, but they fucked you over good and proper. And David Cameron. And George Osborns. And Angela Merkel. And President Obama. Not bad for a bunch of eejits.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
It's about cows, not cars. Farmers remotely monitoring their livestock and crops; supermarkets monitoring freezer temperatures and stock levels; doctors keeping a constant computerised eye on their patients' vital signs.
Corbyn's problem is shown on this thread. For the vast majority of the population, IoT and big data mean nothing so Corbyn sounds pretentious at best and a gibbering idiot at worst.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
It's about cows, not cars. Farmers remotely monitoring their livestock and crops; supermarkets monitoring freezer temperatures and stock levels; doctors keeping a constant computerised eye on their patients' vital signs.
I know a little about the latter of those: tracking patients' vital signs wherever they are in a hospital. The key thing is to make whatever attaches to the patient as cheap as possible.
Corbyn's problem is shown on this thread. For the vast majority of the population, IoT and big data mean nothing so Corbyn sounds pretentious at best and a gibbering idiot at worst.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
If you want to sell it here, it has to meet standard xyzy... It probably wouldn't be too hard to get other governments to sign up to such standards - once youve got a majority of First world countries signed up, it will be hard to find a manufacturer for a lower standard
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
It's about cows, not cars. Farmers remotely monitoring their livestock and crops; supermarkets monitoring freezer temperatures and stock levels; doctors keeping a constant computerised eye on their patients' vital signs.
Or, you turning your kettle on as you near home after having turned on the heating !!!
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
If you want to sell it here, it has to meet standard xyzy... It probably wouldn't be too hard to get other governments to sign up to such standards - once youve got a majority of First world countries signed up, it will be hard to find a manufacturer for a lower standard
Maybe, but even so, it won't be beyond the wit of manufacturers to embed a back-door/get-round like in the motor emissions case.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
If you want to sell it here, it has to meet standard xyzy... It probably wouldn't be too hard to get other governments to sign up to such standards - once youve got a majority of First world countries signed up, it will be hard to find a manufacturer for a lower standard
Hmmm. I fear that won't be the case. Even now, what manufacturers *say* they do, and what they *really* do, are often very different. You'd have to check all devices, whenever there's an update.
It's a nightmare.
(For those who don't know, I spent years working in consumer electronics, often working with small-name box-shifters)
If they each lend O'Leary one IQ point, would they all four be plants together, or could they pool their intelligence to make an imbecile?
Yeah, but they fucked you over good and proper. And David Cameron. And George Osborns. And Angela Merkel. And President Obama. Not bad for a bunch of eejits.
Leedsprinter, have you ever come across the concept of 'sarcasm'? It is what I was using. The not so subtle implication was that the chief of Ryanair was not perhaps in the best position to accuse others of having a low IQ.
Thursday night football was great for us last season, but still in the last six years, you've still managed to go further in the Champions League than Arsenal.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
If you want to sell it here, it has to meet standard xyzy... It probably wouldn't be too hard to get other governments to sign up to such standards - once youve got a majority of First world countries signed up, it will be hard to find a manufacturer for a lower standard
Hmmm. I fear that won't be the case. Even now, what manufacturers *say* they do, and what they *really* do, are often very different. You'd have to check all devices, whenever there's an update.
It's a nightmare.
(For those who don't know, I spent years working in consumer electronics, often working with small-name box-shifters)
You only have to look at the news from the past week of dodgy firmware that has been inserted into the Android phone market that sent back personal info for as yet unknown reasons by a number of Chinese firms.
You only have to look at the news from the past week of dodgy firmware that has been inserted into the Android phone market that sent back personal info for as yet unknown reasons by a number of Chinese firms.
You only have to look at the news from the past week of dodgy firmware that has been inserted into the Android phone market that sent back personal info for as yet unknown reasons by a number of Chinese firms.
You get counterfeit parts in the aerospace industry which is far more regulated than the IoT is ever likely to be. How we are going to control a market for cheap gadgets made in enormous numbers on the other side of the world and sold through all sorts of markets is beyond me.
If they each lend O'Leary one IQ point, would they all four be plants together, or could they pool their intelligence to make an imbecile?
Yeah, but they fucked you over good and proper. And David Cameron. And George Osborns. And Angela Merkel. And President Obama. Not bad for a bunch of eejits.
Leedsprinter, have you ever come across the concept of 'sarcasm'? It is what I was using. The not so subtle implication was that the chief of Ryanair was not perhaps in the best position to accuse others of having a low IQ.
Sorry old man, I was ineptly commenting on your comment, but was referring to Mr O'Leary. I'm not up to speed with the 4th Industrial revolution yet.
You only have to look at the news from the past week of dodgy firmware that has been inserted into the Android phone market that sent back personal info for as yet unknown reasons by a number of Chinese firms.
You get counterfeit parts in the aerospace industry which is far more regulated than the IoT is ever likely to be. How we are going to control a market for cheap gadgets made in enormous numbers on the other side of the world and sold through all sorts of markets is beyond me.
I'm quite interested in the possibilities of games that subtly train the players into mind-sets that they wouldn't otherwise adopt. Seems to me there is genuine scope for brain washing stuff on a large scale.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Oh, it can be done. It's trivial in theory, but hard in practice. It needs to be idiot-proof and invisible to the end-user. And there needs to be a way of updating them to fix security holes.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I think we don't need the Internet of Things.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
It's about cows, not cars. Farmers remotely monitoring their livestock and crops; supermarkets monitoring freezer temperatures and stock levels; doctors keeping a constant computerised eye on their patients' vital signs.
Or, you turning your kettle on as you near home after having turned on the heating !!!
Not sure why I wrote cars actually -- since cars are another big area, with insurers wanting to monitor your driving (and that of your 17-year-old daughter when she borrows the car) and fleet operators wanting to watch just about everything.
If the EU thinks it will damage the UK, it may discover that two can play at that game. As many others have discovered to their cost when threatening these islands in the past.
I have no doubt in my mind which one will come out the victor in the long term.
Still delusional Casino? I'm afraid a pair of twos will never beat a full house, no matter how hard you bluff it.
If they each lend O'Leary one IQ point, would they all four be plants together, or could they pool their intelligence to make an imbecile?
And I thought you lot lionised fabulously successful businessmen and entrepreneurs? I guess not when they're calling you on the weakness of your position as you hang half way down the cliff.
Am I the only one who thinks The Internet of Things sounds like a term created for the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
It's a real thing. If you attach the right chips to everything (toasters, cows, your mother) and allow those chips to talk to each other, then you have a great deal of control (or more realistically you have enormous data). Real-life applications include:
* You can now switch your heating/boiler on/off remotely with your phone * Your car can send out a large amount of data, enabling you to reduce your insurance * The inventor of Candy Crush receives an enormous amount of data per second from all the people worldwide
So the style of cyber warfare in the next severe winter will be everyone's heating systems being turned off, leaving the population to freeze?
Anything you can do like that, someone else can hack & destroy.
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
Unsarcastically: yes. Which is why I posted a link to the Dyn article: it's already here, it's already a problem, and I don't know what the solution is.
On a serious note - the way to deal with internet-of-things hacking is to mandate security - on the basis that providing zillions of hosts for DDoS is affecting society as a whole.
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Good point, but who is going to bell the cat? The best the UK government can do is control the things in the UK, but who controls the ones outside the UK? Is there/will there be a Great Firewall of Britain?
If you want to sell it here, it has to meet standard xyzy... It probably wouldn't be too hard to get other governments to sign up to such standards - once youve got a majority of First world countries signed up, it will be hard to find a manufacturer for a lower standard
Maybe, but even so, it won't be beyond the wit of manufacturers to embed a back-door/get-round like in the motor emissions case.
For malicious stuff, yes.
Building actual security into these systems - the cost of implementing it is so cheap that it would probably be more expensive to cheat...
Thursday night football was great for us last season, but still in the last six years, you've still managed to go further in the Champions League than Arsenal.
I love that fact But that was a shocker of a campaign. Really looking forward to my third trip to Wembley now vs cska!!!
Comments
If you can't be sure, then surely it's a Turing test gone right.
Jeremy Corbyn must have been sent to this earth by God in order to make Ed Miliband look not too bad.
Those two brief statements from Corbyn, that leads this thread, proves what an empty ignoramus he really is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/nov/22/what-are-cyber-physical-systems-and-why-does-jeremy-corbyn-care
The sense of extreme frustration is palpable.
Hee
So this is something the electorate is worried about? Oh, totally. Much more so than Brexit, or the NHS, or affordable living, or the snoopers’ charter, or Labour providing any sort of meaningfully relevant opposition to the government at a time when we need it most
Double hee.
So a) we have a Wikipedia article giving a proprietorial definition of something for which there is a general article (the Internet of Things), and b) a leader of the opposition willing to parrot stuff he doesn't understand.
I don't know which is worse...
There was an exhibition at the NEC 2 weeks ago on smart factories but the awareness is very little in Britain. Maybe because our manufacturing is relatively backward.
1+
https://twitter.com/clougholive/status/801074776357928960
If you increase the pressure and keep the volume constant, then you can make things boil at hotter temperatures. So *really* hot tea...
It is pretty trivial to create such systems with built in 1024bit crypto to secure and sign all the communications between the "things", and have any external web interface properly hardened. And turned off by default.
Of the three Cabinet ministers responsible for Brexit — David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox — the Ryanair boss said: “If their IQ was one point lower they’d be plants”.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/22/cbi-paid-1-million-brussels/
If you suddenly add load (everyone turns on their kettle in the adverts) the grid slows down a bit unless they add more generating capacity and speed it up again
It only has to average 50Hz over the day, not every instant.
This all costs money. Guess what your box-shifter cares about? Money, not security.
I have no doubt in my mind which one will come out the victor in the long term.
The internet is mostly about communication and entertainment, not controlling kettles.
... there's money in the IoT. Someone's got to write the software and design the chips.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot
https://www.sensium-healthcare.com/sensiumvitals®
It's a nightmare.
(For those who don't know, I spent years working in consumer electronics, often working with small-name box-shifters)
Maggie Haberman Verified account
@maggieNYT
Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."
7 goals in the first 30 minutes, ended 8-4.
It makes me imagine how exciting football would be if there where no goalkeepers.
[checks the Dead Pool on a site I host]
Yeah, someone has already bagged him. 81, apparently.
A good pick by that reader-player as Bamber's obviously gone gaga. Sad.
"dodgy firmware"
"personal info"
"Chinese firms"
This is easy, it's Y0kel's area.
I read them and the only thing I can think of is a grey mess.
That it's also full of grey colour doesn't help.
Corbyn should stick to rallies and give T-Shirts with nice one line slogans and his face on them.
Trump wasn't an idiot when he gave away millions of Make America Great Again hats in his multiple rallies.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/801181610108403714
5 bonus goals awarded for killing or incapacitating all opposition players before full-time. Another 10 for knocking out your opponent's chariot.
Could also chain up half-starved predatory beasts in the corners, for that added frisson of excitement.
Building actual security into these systems - the cost of implementing it is so cheap that it would probably be more expensive to cheat...
Remember EVERYONE has a agenda.
Oh and he's also a climate change "denier" it seems...