Children are most at risk from relatives. Children should not have families. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
May is a fool.
3080 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
The system should be federated and public so that if I want to, I can host/provide my own ID verification system. I probably won't (I do have something that vaguely passes for a life), but the only way to keep the bastards honest is to ensure that at any time you can yank the rug from below them.
I agree with the main thrust; if the state wants me to be open with it, then it must be open with me. That means that I can authenticate (via OpenID or whatever) and view all the information the government holds on me, and all MP/civili servant interests and expenses etc.
I'm happy to accept some restrictions for national security (e.g. active police investigations) but not one heck of a lot. I said it below - I want to see my MPs and MEPS leads by example; not engage in hypocrisy,
Godwin. You ruin an otherwise good point.
A public action can still be private (I go to the toilet, that is public knowledge, the action remains private) and it is often by acting in public that we are at our most free and anonymous. The state wishes to remove this - why?
Not for the children; that is the systematic failure of outdated, superstitious organisations that (for whatever reason) still get special treatment. Also, if our own MPs and MEPs divulged their information publicly (you know, to their employers) then I would have more sympathy. Until then, in the words of that great philosopher, "eat my shorts".
...asymmetric crypto, VPS, VPN and multiple accounts; bitch.
The government can handle my data in via the private sector the same day they engage in full disclosure of all expenses, all gratuities, all benefits, all share-holdings/directorships etc. In other words, the day they lead by example is the day I follow.
Until then the government will be treated like the clear and present danger they are and get the minimum information they require to function.
What is worse for children? The (small) risk of being interfered with physically or the very real risk of their state regime systematically mining their personal information. And every regime that follows. The state is elected to obey and to serve the people, not the other way around. We forget this at our peril.
He gave out his CIA login? He didn't just use a public system like mail.com etc?
Surely giving out such sensitive details is not just worthy or firing, but of jail time, dishonourable discharge, and goodness knows what else? He gave unfettered access to his CIA email, and not happens, yet Manning rots in a military prison.
Seems in the USA (like in the UK) justice is no longer blind and actively favours the rich.
I think you miss the point. A lot. See that spec on the horizon? That's the sign post telling you where the point is.
"Your Macbook HD with its 2-3 warranty is more reliable than multiple server farms spread across continents?"
Of course not. Not HDD is. That's why we have RAID and multiple back-ups (with at least one off-site).
"Techies will steal your music?
No. But they may mine the information and report yo to the authorities. Heck, the authorties could even compel them to do so. Also, your data comes under the jurisdiction of the hosting country which could land you in some very hot water if you are unlucky.
"Cloud server administrators cannot and absolutely will not deliberately delete your files."
Unless compelled to by law or other threats (see above). Imagine the MPAA issuing takedowns for movies/music you have uploaded for personal use. Heck, just doing that could be a criminal offence.
"So be circumspect with what you store and where you store it."
Oh, you did get the point after all.
Me - I will store my data locally, keep back-ups and use the cloud only for information I need to share with other and, for whatever reason, don't wish to host it locally. When in the cloud, most of that data will be encrypted/locked by me to ensure that only the people I want have accees
"the default Gnome desktop UI was primitive and -awful-. Reminded me of Win95. Which, you know, was 17 years ago."
What utter cobblers. In fact this is clearly a lie or a very, very old distro. Maybe 17 years old?
The default Gnome UI (called Gnome Shell) looks nothing like Win95 and behave nothing like Win95. It might not be your cup of tea (it isn't mine), but it is way ahead of anything Win95 could offer and not quite as crippled as the Win8 Tiles.
The other thing one could do is, y'know, try a different distro or desktop. That is the thing with GNU/Linux, choice. Not all distros are equal. Some are highly focused/optimised for a particular job.
"I'm not interested in spending the next 3 months tinkering with GTK scripts to enhance it."
I feel the same way about Windows. It takes me far to long to hack it around until it works.
This. Which is why I doc the living hell out of my code so that people reading it (or the API) know what I mean by "foo" and how I expect it to behave. If they contact me to ask a question, either they haven't read the docs (in which case I give them short shrift for wasting my time*) or the docs were inadequate (in which case I update them).
And if coders don't understand a ternary operator, you need better coders.
*That may seem a bit harsh, and I don't actually mind answering sensible questions. But it's not a case of just one person asking, it's the next and the next and the next and the...so I make them read the docs and come back with a sensible answer. I know some folks always do check the docs, so I know from the get-go they are asking something sensible. Other folks? Not so much.
"Even if they start out accurate they get out of date because there's nothing to enforce change in them as the code changes."
Yes there is, it's called a "Code Review". All code should be reviewed by the team, and preferably by some not involved in the actual project. Of course, time needs to be allowed for this and it seldom is.
"Every time you think of writing a comment, don't! Call a function or method or instantiate an object and put the comment in the name of the identifier."
That's good up to a point, and well named object/methods/params/members are a big help; but nothing, nothing beats proper docs and comments. It also means the APIs can be spat out and handed over to other teams fully doc'd, with behaviours, expected responses etc all done. No need to keep secondary documentation in sync. One line of code docs/comments per line of code (ish, depends on the language).
If you change the code, change the comments. Simple.
...but then decays.
"I'll just shim this minor edge case in here...it's easier than re-architecting a bunch of classes" [repeat a few hundred times]
"Oh crap, this condition was never envisaged...I'll hard code in an if-else block to cope." [repeat a few hundred times]
"I really should update the docs, but there's no documentation time in the schedule, and I have 100 tasks to do before the end of the week."
"Unity test? Yeah, I should, but there's no time in the schedule."
"This code is obvious, I don't need comments."
"Code review? No time, no time...everyone is too busy."
"Hmm...fixing this minor UI glitch properly is going to mean re-writing loads of code to provide proper abstraction...the manager won't believe me that such a small change on the UI will take two weeks...better hack it than get into an argument." [repeat a few hundred times]
[Two years pass]
"HOLY JAYSUZ! What is this shit? What does that mean? WTF is that branch meant to be doing? Oh dear gawd! Who wrote this piece of shit? Oh, wait....oops"
You need to allow 3 to 5 times the coding duration if you expect to get quality.
I do not express personal opinions at work, only professional ones (if you see what I mean). I will do my utmost to make sure projects work and are delivered on time, even if I personally think the focus is totally wrong e.g. Surface is going to outsell all other tablets - so only worry about that, forget Android, OS X, iOS etc.
My professional opinion is: we should stick to standards where possible and maintain portability to ease client migrations; we have to deploy on their current equipment after all.
My personal opinion is: Surface? WTF? Are you high? Have you actually used that vomit? You do know RT is a crippled POS, don't you? Are you paying attention to the real world at all?
One of these I will express at work, the other not so much. And as the professional opinion does not appear to be dissent, it actually gets listened to without giving them any clue as to what I really think.
Patent me that,
Who's afraid of the Redmond....<insert nawty word here>.
MS grabs $5 per handset.
Google gargles $100 mill or whatever for H264.
Apple slurps X for Y
Samsung...
The money goes around and around, time is lost, courts choked up and in the end it is zero sum (except for the lawyers). It's almost as if the world would be better off without this patent garbage on software; then folks would just get on with stuff.
But wait! Where would the investment go if it couldn't be protected? Well, they are already wasting sky-fairy knows much on lawyers and lost suits; perhaps than money would cover these mythical loses that would be incurred.
It would be nice to whitelist non-annoying ads on some sites; but I went for the nuclear option:
dnsmasq and an ad blocking config; kill the wee fuckers network wide.
Actually, I wonder if blocking ads means I'm breaching copyright? A bit like how the ad skippers in pVRs were done over.
Pretty soon sites will test for the actual presence of their ads before they show content; I've seen this already. Can't blame the sites trying to protect revenue, but rather than engage in an arms race; wy not just use nice, static ads that aren't migraine inducing?
Can you id the "sponsored crap"? You might be able to set up a GreaseMonkey script (or similar) to remove the crap.
I must admit, I feel a bit guilty at the level of ad blocking I employ as i know sites need money. I drop it every now and again to see if things have improved, but it has only got worse. Even on this very site, some floating puff for the latest MS sack of crap deigned to hover over the comments the other day (just like MS, still trying to catch up with last decade) and the length of time is takes to load all this junk (never mind the insidious tracking and profiling) caused me to raise shields again.
If the ads didn't flash and didn't jar with the content, I could tolerate them.
With the to-do over orphaned works and the land-grab being made by some to profit off the sweat of others without having to offer them any remunerations; is this any surprise?
By all means use social media; but always tag your pictures and only upload reduced quality. If people think your work is good, get them to come and pay you.
So this lady is apparently trying to buy up the entire USA stock of iPhone 5s to meet the staggering demand in China? But according to El Reg, 14th Dec there is Chinese indifference to the iPhone 5.
So which is it, El Reg?
As for the lady being tasered, I find it staggering that a fully trained police officer could not restrain her and decided to use potentially lethal force. Are USA officers not taught locks and holds? It is perfectly possible to hold some immobile and compliant with a joint lock (especially given the extra leverage cuffs allow for). Back-up was coming, why not just restrain her? And as there no other mall security closer?
Production halved, El Reg, Nov 29th
And now you claim they are ramping production to meet demand from the slavering Winbois. Which is it?
Or is this PR twaddle: they cut production, wait a fortnight and then 'ramp' production back to normal so they can crow about this mythical insatiable demand. Which, of course, it utter twaddle.
@Chet Mannly - Market economics and price elasticity of demand. Let's say corporate tax did go up 10%. Let's further say that 100% of that tax bill was passed on to the customer (which doesn't necessarily equate to a 10% price rise). The company has two problems:
They may not sell enough at the new, higher price (demand is highly elastic) and so have to lower it again; or
Their biggest competitor might know the above already and simply fire a few bodies to recoup the cost, or simply suck it up meaning that out fictional company cannot raise prices.
This, of course, does assume a near-perfect market with no monopoly player and no price fixing.
Better idea. Ask the MPs what they think Google should have paid. Subtract what Google did pay. Divide that by the number of MPs. Recover said sum for the assets of every MP.
Or, if they won't agree to that, ask them who passed the laws. Once you have a list of names, remove them from the house for gross incompetence and hold some elections.
You can bet than when it comes to the next round of tax law, all their minds will be more focused.
Either way, it's not Google, Starbucks' or anyone else's "fault". They are playing the game (perhaps a sharp and nasty game) but a game nonetheless and within the rules; we must blame cretins who gave us these rules.
I came here to say something similar, but you can just ditch Windows and move to a GNU/Linux. There will be a lot of custom code that would need ported, assuming it can even be ported, and there may be show-stopper applications that can only run on Windows.
It might be cheaper/easier to just cough for the fees, which should have been paid anyway!
And, of course, depending on the nature of you business use MS may not demand license fees for their OS but licenses for the use of their patents; regardless of OS you are using.
LEARN TO READ A BLOODY MAP!
GPS is convenient and good for driving along with, but dear god never totally rely on it. Map, compass, know how to use them. Not only will this give your next trip an elite SAS feel, but paper maps don't run out of batteries. They're also great fun for spreading out over a table and discussing where to go next.
Seriously...if you drive long distances, take a map.
"My arguments are perfectly valid"
What argument? All I see are some red herring statements on a totally separate topic.
"you have come out with stock dumb answers"
I think you'll find that all I have done is point out the irrelevance of your own statements.
"that with your limited intelligence"
"And all though you appear [too] dumb to realise it"
Ad hominems. This is what I mean about not being able to construct an argument.
"you have discussed your views and opinions."
I may have stated my opinions elsewhere within this forum, but I don't think I have discussed them with yourself; and I just checked, I haven't (until my recent statements, of course).
"So either preset a valid argument that is logic"
I have. I have logically and clearly deconstructed your statements and shown why they do not form a valid argument. I have managed to do this with resorting to personal slurs; something which I note you have failed to manage. A shame you feel the need to resort to such base tactics, if you would present and actual argument they would not be required.
"Ad hominem". To the man and comes in multiple forms. I assure you I can recognise a reasoned argument, I am still awaiting one from yourself. Your abusive ad hominem wasn't really a good start, nor was the straw man you then attempted and which, in my opinion, also strayed into an abusive ad hominem.
Note: I assume you are all the same AC. This may be wrong. But as you are posting AC I have no way of determining if this is one person or many.
"'I haven't presented an argument, merely pointed out that the one you provided was fallacious.'
Which obviously in itself is a good old fashioned ad hominem. Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Except for the small matter that it isn't. Pointing out that your argument is fallacious makes no comment about you as a person, belittles you or otherwise insults you; nor did I seek to put words into your mouth (as you did with me).
As for me being hypocritical, I make no claims to being perfect and at least I have the good grace to post under a handle where you can see my past history. I wouldn't go too far back though, the opinions I expressed in the past may not be the ones I hold now. See that's the thing about debate - when one's argument is shown to be weak/false it needs to be reconsidered.
In order to assist you in this matter, I shall make two simple statements:
1) Stallman raises some valid points about the Ubuntu Shopping Lens. I am not certain I agree 100% with his conclusions as he is a exponent of the slippery slope. However when it comes to matters technical, he does have an annoying habit of being rather prescient. He does at least raise many points for debate and I thought Bacon's response failed to address many of them;
2) On the other matter; I can find no reference to your claim on his Wikipedia page, I did manage to find it on his blog from 2006. On that I think he is wrong, assuming he still holds that opinion of course. You could always ask him and see what he says.
As you can see, I have also cited my sources. If you are going to make claims in the future, I suggest you do likewise.
Canoncial is a business. It needs to make money. Why is this a surprise to many in the F/OSS community? Do they thinking money pops out of thin air or something?
First thing I did was uninstall the lens. If I want to search Amazon, I'll go search Amazon; I don't need the PC to do it for me. Even with the lens, I am not worried about Amazon potentially data-mining me (won't be possible unless Canonical pass up some kind of GUID) but Canoncial could profile me.
Oh, and Mr Shuttleworth? You don't have root until I say you can have root.
"ditto for you"
I haven't presented an argument, merely pointed out that the one you provided was fallacious.
"So you support his views on pedophillia?"
Appeal to emotion. Ignored.
"I assume you would be quite happy for some adult to rape them"
Appeal to fear. Ignored.
"If not, you have no right defending him."
You have constructed a position for me which you have then attempted to tear down. Straw man. Ignored.
I have not discussed my personal views on such acts on children, nor my views on Stallman's purported opinion of such acts. l have restrained myself to pointing out that you have not yet presented a valid argument with regards the current topic; Canoncial's Shopping Lens and Stallman's assessment of that. Oh, and pointing out your fallacies.
So either present a valid argument or, as the saying goes, haud yer wheest.