That's more terrifying than the regular terrifying news that comes out of China these days.
"It explained that to achieve this success rate, it would be deploying enormous amounts of compute power to monitor and analyse large amounts of data in real-time."
How is this different to what the NSA, GCHQ et al were (or are) doing? It's ostensibly for a different purpose, but presumably would have to work on a pretty similar dataset. That is to say: watching who's calling who, in realtime. And do they collect everyone's data for analysis, but only "use" it if you opt-in to the service, or do they only analyse your calling patterns if you opt-in?
Yeah, this kind of thing has been around for a while.
These days the added latency of going through the kernel IP stack is generally measured in micro rather than milliseconds but the difference is still the same order of magnitude. Solarflare, Mellanox and others will happily sell you expensive Ethernet network cards that come bundled with drivers that let you bypass the kernel IP stack. The stack itself isn't especially slow but the system call and extra memcpys still do all add up. I've also seen an in-house user space stack built largely on top of lwIP.
So I'd agree that none of this particularly new, but I reckon it's still interesting that the BBC is using it. Maybe that'll help spur more widespread adoption.
they've already put some employees on paid leave until medically cleared
Would this be mitigated by Disney *always* providing paid sick leave? The quote in TFS suggests that this might be the exception rather than the rule. If you encourage employees to come in to work while they're sick, or even hide their symptoms, then I guess you're more likely to see illnesses spread...
Mass surveillance should never be tolerated
I agree and that's not what I said and not what TFS or TFA is about - they're about targeted surveillance of lawyers. Which is always wrong, with a few possible but very rare exceptions. Targeting lawyers of people who criticise the government is clearly wrong and a blatant abuse of power.
I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of history
I don't think I'm completely ignorant of history (although I wouldn't would I), but I might disagree with you about how we solve the problem. And as I said above, there is clearly a problem that needs fixing.
British spies should be spying on _every_ British citizen illegally
That's not what I said and not what I believe. It's not what TFA is about either.
Trying to conflate the jobs of law enforcement and "spying"
I am dead set against that. The only example I gave was spying on a foreign leader which, as I said, I consider distasteful but (sometimes) necessary. You can, and quite possibly do, disagree with that and that's fine.
apologists don't want debate and dialogue
Whilst I don't believe I'm an apologist, debate and dialogue is what we're having here, and you'll see a previous comment of mine above where I said it's a good thing that we're outraged. And yes, I'm outraged if the government and/or intelligence agencies have been abusing their power. That doesn't necessarily mean that breaking the attorney-client privilege is always a bad thing and to be clear, it absolutely doesn't mean it's a good thing either. It's not too hard to come up with a (very unlikely but not impossible) circumstance where the majority of citizens would agree it was the right thing to do in that very individual and specific circumstance. My position is simply that I favour more scrutiny and accountability rather than more laws and absolute rules - never say never, but you must be able to, and made to, justify why you're doing something as a spy.
Spies should respect laws and constitutions, at the very least those of their own country.
No argument from me there, but how do we balance this against other nations or groups that don't play by the same rules? (However limited or flawed the home laws might currently be).
the largest and smartest tank ever designed for the British Army
So my first thought was surely not - the Challenger 2 is a main battle tank and must be bigger. But it turns out I was wrong. The Challenger 2 is still 20 tonnes heavier, but significantly shorter in height:
Challenger 2: Length 27ft 3 x Height 8ft 2 x Width 11 ft 6
Scout SV: Length: 25ft x Height: 9ft 10in x Width: 11ft
Crudely multiplying those numbers to get an approximation of volume gives the Scout SV the edge (just).
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.