Re: "the concept of saving face"
How could you write that and not mention that man who drove to Barnard Castle to see if he needed glasses?
1132 posts • joined 11 Jan 2008
Look, when it successfully returns an error code, that's Success!, right? And if you get the Success! message, you won't call the "help" desk, will you?
It all seems very logical to me.
As logical as trying to close a Barclays joint account when you both live abroad. This happened to me today.
1. Because it's a joint account, they require both parties to either come into a branch together (difficult if the nearest branch is thousands of miles away) or make a video banking call together.
2. Barclays video banking only works from a smartphone, not from a desktop computer.
3. You can't register for the app unless your smartphone is registered in the UK (difficult if you live thousands of miles away).
4. So, you can't actually close the account at all.
Doesn't matter since it now has £0 in it, but really?
Yes. Like so many of the UK's late lamented IT companies, Marconi had the technology smarts but lacked the business smarts. (Rule 1: Price your crap competitively, or nobody will buy it. Rule 2: Remember that you have no right to win business, you have to work at it.)
Anyway, I'm glad some of the people in charge show some signs of intelligence in the face of the "security" lies from the NSA and other American sources.
"Shareholders really love this arrangement though."
Not so much. I sold mine several mass firings ago, when there was a brief upwards tick in the share price. Good move, as it turns out.
Interesting, though, that Arvind is slashing the services arms that his two predecessors were so keen on. That does signal some sort of change. But "pivots to cloud"? Two buzzwords in one phrase, so I have no idea what it really means.
So, you rate the probability of significant harm due to GCHQ knowing where you've been as greater than the probability of significant harm due to undetected contact with infectious individuals.
I don't know how to calculate the odds of those two hypothetical outcomes. I do know that COVID-19 is an unpleasant and dangerous disease, and that I have been nowhere that would be of concern to GCHQ. I'll take the tracking, thankyou.
"To get R<1, you can simply get enough people to wear masks"
There is no reliable evidence that this statement is true. NZ has no mask requirement and no more new cases. Social distancing plus test, trace, isolate. But you must test and trace every single case.
NZ is a large village where an amazing number of people know each other, and very few of them are paranoid about their own government, which they have a chance to throw out every 3 years. So data privacy, while it's a thing, and occasionally gets breached, is not what people worry about. At the moment they don't need to worry too much about COVID-19 either, and if the cost of that was lost privacy (which I don't think it was) then most people would <shrug/>.
Rubbish. They closed the border a bit late, but started contact tracing from the very first case, and imposed distancing measures in good time. 100% is due to the excellent, coordinated, well communicated government response. No country has done better. Kudos to the government. Even their right wing opponents know that they did almost everything right.
Of course, having no land borders made it easier. But thousands of people arrive by air every day in normal times.
"Uni's have to go where the money is"
Well, duh, that's the neo-liberals' idea of how to run universities. No surprise that they're going to the most successful telecomms & networking company in the most important country in the world.
Why would anyone look to a collapsing economy such as the US for long-term R&D money? And this stupid government has made the EU a much less promising source of funds. You're left with China.
"... Huawei and its foreign affiliates have stepped-up efforts to undermine these national security-based restrictions through an indigenization effort,” said US Security of Commerce Wilbur Ross.Ignoring the wonderful typo, there you have it, right there. If this was actually anything to do with national security, it wouldn't be the Secretary of Commerce, it would be a security-related member of the Administration saying it. So I'd rather say:
The USA has stepped up its trade war and its violations of international trade rules by applying bogus "security-based restrictions" to Huawei and its foreign affiliates.
It wasn't a bug in Algol. It was meant to work that way. If you read up on why Niklaus Wirth designed Algol-W and Pascal the way they were, I'm sure you'll find pithy comments on this.
Even more fun in Algol 60 was passing expressions including functions by name as parameters to other functions. Like A := proc1(proc2(A+B), proc2(A)).That wasn't liable to cause unintended side effects; it was side effects.
Few compilers supported that feature, because it was really interpretative. Burroughs Algol created run-time entities called "thunks" to handle it, which I guess were mini-interpreters built into your compiled code, with hardware assist according to the only Google reference I could find.
Fortunately it doesn't need that many people in the 99% to change their vote to eject Trump. But indeed some of the rich will be keen to keep a baby in the Oval Office. But I'm not sure it's all the rich by any means. His ineptitude in handling the pandemic has hit many of the rich in their wallets.
"About 1994 when an outsider CEO came in who did not understand mainframe business model..."
Wrong. Lou Gerstner saved the company when it was about to choke to death on the mainframe-plus-SNA business model that was already obsoleted by commodity servers and the Internet. Although he did a bit of the share option incentive stuff, and share buy-backs to enhance the bull market, it was the next guy (Sam) who started the ruinous accountant-based "shareholder value" "services-driven" crap that ruined the company, and who also picked another one like him (Ginni) who just kept cranking the same handle. It will be great if Arvind Krishna can correct things, but if not, IBM will join DEC and ICL in Computer Company Heaven.
There are signs that Arvind is doing things right, like stopping the share buy-backs:
Paris, because IBM paid for a lot of Hilton nights for me at one point.
This decision is a sad triumph of magical thinking over rationality. In so far as Kieren's biased reporting has helped to influence the decision, it isn't a good day for The Register either.
Just to recap: .org has been operated as a commercial registry since 1998, in a highly competitive market where the price of registering a name in a database has been kept pretty low. There has been essentially no vetting of who registers in .org, and it's been used for commercial or malicious purposes as well as for non-commercial organisations (only some of which are non-profits or NGOs). Who owns the company that runs the registry database has no impact on the perceived value of the name.
So blocking this sale is irrational, and will possibly have negative impacts that people will look back on in 20 years with some considerable regret.
"they don't allow foreign carriers to operate outside of HK."
It's (theoretically) a Communist country, remember? What else do you expect?
The USA is (theoretically) a capitalist country with strong anti-trust laws. That means they should be allowing free competition regardless of ownership of a company.
So, it's the United States of Trump which is the hypocrite here. Just part of the trade war (which they've already lost, by the way).
You're wrong about Gerstner. Actually it was his predecessor (Akers) who started the mass firings and also planned to split up the company the first time it was swirling towards the plug hole. Gerstner came in, actually listened to the top technical people, decided to cancel any idea of splitting the company, and started the pivot towards the Internet. A bit late, since apparently Akers didn't notice the Internet and was fixated with the dying SNA cash cow (by which I do not mean Ellen Hancock personally, but she was quickly ejected by Gerstner). Gerstner's one mistake: picking Palmisano to follow him, who mainly listened to accountants and marketroids. Palmisano's worst mistake: picking Rometty. Rometty's best decision: picking Arvind Krishna. I have a tiny hope that he can save the company again.
No, I don't think any of that. However, since .org has been operated as a commercial enterprise since 1998, I am at a loss to understand why a change of beneficial ownership of the registry has led to the current fuss. Yes, the beneficial ownership will move from a non-profit back to a profit-making corporation like it was before Jan 1st, 2003. No, that will not change the perceived value of a .org domain name, and the competition between registries will set the price just as it has done every day since 1998.
"If theregister.co.uk suddenly vanished and moved to theregister.xxx, how would you know and trust that it was the same organisation?" Nice strawman. It would take about 2 minutes with Google or Duck Duck Go to verify or falsify.
"no one has said who get's the cash from the sale"
Rubbish. That's been clear since the day of the announcement. The current owner of PIR gets the cash and will use it to set up an endowment fund "to ensure that the Internet is there for everyone." That's about as "public interest" as you can get.
My downvote was intentional.
Why on earth do people appear to believe that a name registry being operated for profit has a serious impact on the organizations that have picked a name because it happens to end in a particular suffix? It's a strange form of magical belief but it doesn't have much to do with reality. Precisely because the name registry business is aggressively competitive, mysilly.org will never become signficantly expensive compared to mysilly. anything else. Get over it.
Attorneys General are supposed to be rational, legal thinkers. Here is a public service announcement: A down vote on this post indicates that you believe in magic.
"In a furious letter...". I think you meant "curious". It's curious in that it doesn't actually bring any facts or legal arguments to bear, or even suggest by what mysterious mechanism a couple of AGs might stop a commercial transaction. It's also curious in that it cites two media stories that happen to have been written by the author (one cannot say "journalist") of this one. We move in small circles, apparently.
I'm a bit disappointed by Mike and Esther, too. (I've met them both.) They know, because they were there at the beginning in 1998-2000, that ICANN was created by the US Government precisely to privatize the Top Level Domain business. Once that was done, it was game over for idealistic ideas about the public interest: Ayn Rand had won. Companies get bought and sold. Don't like it? Try communism to see if you like that better.
Sorry but we have to live in the real world.
Given that the transaction is financially neutral for ICANN (until renewal time comes up, when the whole contract for .org enters an open season) and given that what they are actually discussing are the “public interest commitments”, I'm not sure what the factual basis of your accusation might be.
Not that ICANN is squeaky clean in general, but we are talking about this specific transaction, in which ICANN is not directly involved except as an overseer.
Up to and including the Gerstner regime, IBM played fair with its employees, even when forced by circumstances to send some of them away. Since Gerstner left, not so much. The revenue numbers and the share price graph show the results.
As everywhere, the rot set in when Personnel was renamed Human Resources.
I hope Arvind Krishna understands this; otherwise the company is doomed.
"total disconnect from that customers want and the coal-face staff"
I'm not sure he's that bad. He's not a robot, unlike Ginny. What is positive is that he actually understands the technology, which the past several CEOs haven't. He might just save the company.
Still, I'm glad I sold my shares a while back.
"we discourage the use of Zoom at this time for use cases that require strong privacy and confidentiality"
But for the vast majority of their recent influx of users - students & teachers, grandmas and grandkids, that really isn't a big deal and their traffic is worth anybody decrypting. So yes, they should fix, but actually this is not the end of the world.
Are you suggesting that "the Chinese" subverted the truth about coronavirus, or about Huawei, or what? It's quite unclear from your post. In objective fact "the Americans" (or at least, their so-called President) have been subverting the truth about both Huawei and coronavirus, and much more so than the Chinese authorities in both cases.
I don't think that improving (IPv6) connectivity in the Asia-Pacific region is a hobby-horse. It's more like, say, being able to sell most of the (US) 847 area code numbers and use the proceeds to improve 5G coverage in rural Illinois.
Anyway, I've known Jun for 20+ years and whatever he does always works out brilliantly well. My only comment is Kampai!
"It's disabled because of the forums and logging / posting IP etc."
4 months ago they said "(which is part of what we have yet to finish updating for full IPv6 support)." I realise that bringing a software fix into production takes time and won't happen during lockdown, but this is a fairly poor excuse when IPv6 has been production-ready for so many years.
"I can see why pulling an afterthought FTP function from a browser is a good idea."
It was not an afterthought. I don't recall for MOSAIC, too long ago, but the code was already in Netscape and I expect that's the origin of the code in Firefox. The ftp: schema is as old as http:. The full set of schemas defined in RFC1630 in June 1994 was:
http Hypertext Transfer Protocol (examples)
ftp File Transfer protocol
gopher Gopher protocol
mailto Electronic mail address
news Usenet news
telnet, rlogin and tn3270 Reference to interactive sessions
wais Wide Area Information Servers
file Local file access
DoH is certainly sinister, but you can switch it off in FireFox.
What are you talking about? There is no new money for ICANN in this proposal. There is no new money for ISOC either; just an endowment to replace an existing revenue stream. There is, presumably, new money in prospect for Ethos Capital, or they wouldn't have put $1.35B on the table. But if so, that's no different from all the other investors in the DNS registry business. Their capital, their risk.
As I've said before, I don't like the fact that DNS registration became a business. But that was in 1998 and there's nothing to be done about it.
I'm sure that the published remit of any investigation will be nice and unbiased. But the real remit will be mumbled into someone's ear (one would like to think this would happen in the smoking room of an exclusive London club, but those days are probably gone, and surely no club would let Dominant Cunnings in). And the real remit could be an instruction to declare Huawei to be as clean as the Immaculate Conception, or as dirty as COVID-19, depending on where the government's lords and masters have their money invested...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020