Posts by ElReg!comments!Pierre 2733 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
The sad thing is that it doesn't need to be legal. I'm sure that Apple will be happy to remove that clause if they are forced to, but as they don't need a reason to refuse an app, they can still ban everyone who doesn't comply with that "rule" even if it's not in the T&C anymore. I'm sure there are a couple publishers around who will just choose to not take the chance...
"Cars rust and get old. Software doesn't."
Oh yeah? Do you really think so? Maybe you need to think again then.
The analogy is actually better than it looks. As much as I usually hate car/software analogies, software does "rot" (bugs and security holes are discovered), and software does get old, too.
I might shell out some cash for a well-maintained year 2000 Toyota, but the salesperson trying to sell me a Win2K license had rather be damn sexy, and pay for the beer and curry, and have a very loose moral sense. And even then I'm not so sure.
"Or you could write your own or use an open source version."
Well, that I can agree with.
If I remember correctly the music megacorp lobby tried to pull the same trick on used CD shops, and failed. I also believe that the transferability clause in MS' licenses is here for a reason (MS are not known for their philanthropic bias). All signs point to Oracle being en route for a long-deserved spanking, and all that crap about user-tied license as well.
You're all looking at it the wrong way. You have to look at the bright side, and honestly, the advantages of this property of SSDs out-weight the risk, and by very, very far.
I don't know how just yet, but just run the same story, altering the title to read "Apple Flash drives dangerously hard to purge of sensitive data", and presto, 3 pages of comments and suggestion proving how good it is and wondering how we could even live with crummy old HDDs unable to retain data after a low-level format.
"This could have a dramatic effect on our development process, the next rev of our product, and more,"
Maybe that's why Apple doesn't provide clarification: the big guys will HAVE to keep on developing iOS apps until the Apple tax collector comes a-knocking, bill in hand. Otherwise, if Apple doesn't come, they will look very stupid indeed. So perhaps Apple is trying to keep the big guys in the dark as long as they can, hoping that they won't leave once they have committed significant resource to a new version of their iApp.
But I am probably just being paranoid. Chances are that the explanation is much simpler: as has always been the case with the Apple App Store, absolutely no-one knows what the real rules are, let alone how they are applied, or to whom. Not even Apple themselves.
"Readability takes 30% of subscription money for themselves for running a script that skims other websites"
Well, Readability is ALSO offered as a free, run-yourself "scriptlet" (yuck, scriptlet. Perhaps the ugliest neologism ever).
Only, guess what? They cannot peddle that to the iHappy crowd, as it is *shock* *horror* interpreted code.
So they have to run the script themselves, which means server space and bandwidth and computer power. That costs money (plus, they DO send money to the content providers, don't they?).
So yes, they charge for something that you could have for free. But that's because Apple's stance makes it impossible to have the free Readability in the first place.
Except that they are, as shown by this article. Readablility for iThings is exactly that: SaaS. And it does seem to be included in the 30% racket, indeed.
Wild interpretations and wishful thinking on a mac fansite can't negate hard facts, or can they? Oh, it's Apple-related, of course they can.
.. my testis better than your testis.
Which brings us back to the basics of the exercise: dick waving.
I happened to notice that the yanks are really fond of having "the first/best $IMPLEMENT in the world", Cue Philadelphia being "The first city in the world to have free running water" (yeah right, ancient Rome might have something to say about that) and "the world's most beautiful murals" (don't even know where to start with this one), Boston being "the home of the first computer" (ha-ha, interesting claim) etc etc...
Pick any tourist-oriented leaflet in any city in the US: they're all full of such wild (and very amusing) claims. It almost looks like the "the world" means "anywhere I can get in a 2 hours drive" for some.
@Tim:
"Indeed, except for obvious exceptions"
NO. EXCEPTION. Not trained == keep your hands off. Period. Just call for help. It takes a trained person to tell if it's safe to have a victim handled by an untrained person. The logical loop should be obvious to any Reg reader.
You might think you're helping by dragging someone away from the fire, but you might really just have dislocated their spine to "save" them from superficial burns. HANDS OFF.
@Amazon Wageslave
"there are plenty of paramedics/EMTs working solo in the UK. They work as First Responders, in cars or sometimes on motorbikes."
Would they be, by any chance, professionnals acting on behalf of an institutionnal body? And as such, covered by their employer for any mishapp? As opposed to certified individuals acting on their own behalf, because they are requested to (being certified), but not legally covered by anyone or anything, and stark naked in court? I was in the latter category (as the Red Cross people are, AFAIK, hence the "2-or-more" rule). It is anything but comfortable. I bet your sexy motorbike-mounted "First Responders" are in the former category (not easy by any count, mind you. They are still heroes by Holliwood standards. But still a tiny bit less risky).
Now re-read my former posts in that light, you might understand me better.
"you should never do anything"
That's actually what non-trained people should do. Always. In the training they tell you to not less untrained people touch the victim, even to "help".
That's also what you can't do when you have a certification. You could end up in the brown 'n smelly. Non-assistance etc.
But if you intervene you MUST make sure there will be witnesses ready to testify that you did everything by the book, or you'll end up even deeper in. Only said witnesses don't know what's in the proverbial book, hence the "announce everything you're doing", "speak clear and loud" etc...
That's how it was were I obtained my last certification, before I let it slip because thanks, but no thanks.
There are only 2 ways to help without ending up completely screwed for helping:
- not being a certified anything: just call the emergency services
- being a certified whatever: work within an organisation, and never alone.
I let mine expire for a similar reason. Rule number one in first aid is "damned if you don't, damned if you do". The first thing you learn is to announce everything you do very loudly to have witnesses; count very loudly etc etc. You are *required* to do the basic checks but you can't afford to do it the fast and efficient way as if something bad happen you must assume that you WILL be sued, so your first consideration must always be to make sure you will have witnesses, and ones with a good memory. Assisting a person in a life-threatening situation is stressful enough as it is, sod that.
As a general member of the public you are only required to call for help, so I'll do just that. I'd join the Red Cross or something, but I lack the time. Why do you think paramedics, the Red Cross people etc ALWAYS go by pairs, at least? Witnesses.
There are several points in your post that I find really disturbing.
- You are talking urban myth vs reallity, and yet your proposed examples are "misogynist fucks who get on the Internet and jerk off to each other's fantasies". Urban myth != real, but online fantasy == real?
- You are talking "surprisingly strong sub-strain" of "creepy misogynist fucks who get off on the idea of sneaking their jizz into some unsuspecting woman's meal" in online fantasies. You seem to know a bit about that, I don't, so I'll assume you're right for the sake of argument. I'm quite sure I can find "creeps" who "get off" on the idea of sneaking their jizz into ANYONE's meal (including each other's meal, for that matter). In real life, not online (boarding schools across the globe are reportedly full of hormone-pumped "creeps" of that kind, for example). That doesn't make the practice any better, but your "misogynist" angle seems a bit far-stretched.
-Lastly, in your outrage you seem to have forgotten the yogurt. Nobody thinks of the yogurt. EVER. For God's sake, will anyone please think of the yogurt? All these Lactobacillus sp., their friends and family, humiliated to the extreme by this public bukkake!
PS one of these 3 points is intended as a joke. Finding which one is left as an exercise for the reader. Also, the one bit I can completely agree with in your post is the title. Sadly, odds point to real, indeed. Disturbed shmuck (not you, the yogurt-peddler). Here, have a cold one -on the house. Now with 30% less semen (but be careful with them peanuts).
DISCLAIMER: this post does not constitute endorsment or justification of misogynism, poor hygiene, alcoholism, misandrism, bullying, boarding schools, rape, food tampering, pedophilia, bukkake, terrorism, the world wide web, or yogurt consumption. Any Similarity to Persons, Peanuts or Bacteria, Living or Dead, Is Purely Coincidental.
I think the comments on the recent couple of stories about men bleeding to death after being stabbed by cocks prove exactly how wrong you are. Which is very.
They were male, they died, and the comments were filled with dubious "Urrh Durrh cock", erm , jokes, not a single word of condolences or outrage. Granted, they were indulging in some activity that your moral sense may not approve of, but my moral sense does not approve of the consumption of greek yogurt, so that's still fair.
No, what's funny is that it was yogurt. If it had been some regular bloke food, like a triple cheeseburger with extra bacon, or a kabob, or -god forbid- a pint of bitter, I would have donned good old Betsy and Laurie-Ann and I'd be burning down some barn or other as we speak (Betsy and Laurie-Ann are my pitchfork and torch).
Sweet Jesus lollipop, calm down.
"Full frame" means "covering the whole frame", as opposed to "crop"
FFT vs FIT is completely different.
Full frame are considered better than crop sensors as
1- they don't mess with the angle of view, you 90mm lens stays a 90mm lens instead of magically becoming 10mm or something
-2 more sensor surface is always better. It gives you more pixels for the same pixel size, or larger pixels for the same pix number (i.e. more light per pixel, and thus less noise).
Of course, with bad lenses a crop sensor eliminates corner softness and vignetting, but you could always do that by cropping the photo afterwards (as that's what the crop sensor does). Or you could get good glass.
"What the defense is arguing is that they don't have *all* of the evidence that the Swedish Authorities have. Apparently the Swedes only presented enough evidence that they thought would be enough to charge Assange."
No, what the defense is arguing is that they have *sod all* evidence, not from the official channels anyway. Leaks in the media are not something you can mount a legal defense against.
"What is definitely interesting is that the Defense is on one hand arguing that Assange hasn't been charged yet... and on the other hand demanding to see *all* of the evidence that the Prosecution has collected as if he were charged.
What the eff are you talking about?
They are saying that
1- he isn't charged so there's no ground for extradition
2- they just remind everyone that IF he is to be charged some day, they need to see all the evidence (which is a legal requirement, as you cannot defend yourself when you don't know what you are accused of).
Hope that it cleared it a bit for you, you sounded confused.
And this is supposed to be a SECURITY firm? My grand'ma wouldn't fall for that trick.
With such secure procedures in place, they thought they could spank Anonymous and get away with it how, exactly?
Anonymous tactics are sometimes dubious, but if the outcome is to unmask that type of crooks posturing as security types, good on them!
Another advantage is that a modern hunting arrow has a much better impact effect on the game. A wounded animal will be stopped in shock, presumably not even feeling the pain right away, unlike what happens with guns. Especially with boars, which are incredibly resistant beasts (with a hell of a hide, too). It is not uncommon to find several pre-existent slugs in wild boars killed in certain area, as wounded animals can escape and hide. Certain animal-lovers might want to do a bit of research before they pick the (medieval) torches and pitchforks.
The Nobel has also been given to a man responsible for war, torture and general human rights destruction, just because he happens to be slightly tanned.
To a imprisoned criminal promoting and organizing riots, just because he doesn't like some of the USA's ennemies.
To an attention-whore for clumsily surfing on a Californian wave of hype.
I'm sure I'm missing some
"Android, you might argue, was fashioned after a certain Apple handset"
That's a rater, erm, "interesting" assertion, care to elaborate? Android is a Linux distro which, according to Google, had been in development for quite a while before the iPhone came out. Given the timeframe, I would say that either Google can be trusted on that, or they work very fast indeed. And it's not like Android and iOS have much in common either. You could even argue that some of the features that iOS gained with subsequent version were actually "fashioned after" Android features that the original iOS lacked and that the users wanted.
Now the design of the first (HTC-made) handset on which Android was shipped might have been following the trend, set by the iPhone *among others*.
>The analogy would be the police not declaring just how far you have to be over a speed limit before they will prosecute.
I think you'll find the analogy WOULD be to remove the signs indeed. In your example what is illegal is clear: driving above 40. 40 being the limit. 39.9 is legal, 40.1 is illegal Whether you get done for driving at 40.1 is another problem.
In the extreme pro0n law case, there is no pre-set limit, no way to tell what exactly is illegal UNTIL you get done. That's completely different, and that's exactly like removing all the speed limit signs and passing a law saying "it is illegal to drive dangerously fast".
>that's a good 2400 photos (minus postage) for the same cost...
More than that actually. I'm guessing that the paper and ink cartridge is anything but cheap, probably to the point of making each photo more expensive than professional prints.
That's the kind of gadget which is used as long as the first roll lasts, then stays unused in the living room for a couple month, then begins a happy life as spider house in the attic.
So, can I have a few examples of weaponized malware previously developed by the USA, to compare?
"We would have done a better job" sounds like a very lame defense. The fact that teenage VXers could do better would actually indicate that they did not do it, indeedly-doo.
The same argument holds for China. The Chinese reportedly pwnd most USA 3-letters agencies' system for years without being detected, after all. Or was it a fear-mongering lie? You can't have it both ways.
>Can I please buy a license to keep one locked up in a shed somewhere in Europe?
You seem to have forgotten something: no-one is FORCING you to buy a Segway in the first place. If you choose to buy one, knowing that you can't use it on public roads, then your bad.
You can own karts or an elephant rifle, doesn't mean you have the right to use them in the street.
>The failure can be for something as benign as not having the correct lights, or not having mudflaps.
Actually it is also illegal to drive an approved vehicle in the street just because you have it running on non-approved fuel. That's how you can get done if you put 1/4th of colza oil in your (diesel) tank. It's better for pretty much everything (including your engine, your wallet, and the environment) but it's not approved so the whole vehicle becomes illegal to drive on public roads.
The Titanium thingamajig I just installed on a bunch'o boxen DID install visual C++ and the .NET framework. It kept complaining that it didn't find a compatible version of IE and that I should expect the machines to slow to a crawl until I installed IE8. I don't know if the warning is justified but I wasn't going to take the chance and risk a dozen angry users knocking on my door asking why their new machine is slower than the old one. Hop, a dozen more IE8 installs that MS can claim even though none of my users actually use it.
I don't know since when, but I suspect since quite a while, and you never noticed because, like 99% of the population, you never paid attention to what you put on your machines.
I don't know about the MacOS version.
BTW I like the casual way you write "Without bothering to do any research (because i'm lazy) i'm going to call bullshit on that.". Without bothering to do any research I think you're a purple slug from Alpha Centauri hired by a joint venture between the NASA, the CIA, Trend Micro and Microsoft to bring doom onto the Human race by the blissful propagation of lazily designed software.
"Streamlining packages poses a tricky software design challenge"
When an AV products forces the install of the .NET framework and visual C++, and insist that IE8 be installed, I can't help but think that at least part of the bloat can be very, very easily cut. And I wouldn't call that a "tricky software design challenge" either, just "software design 101".
Yes Trend Micro, I'm looking your way. Apparently we got a high-volume arrangement with them. High volume of crap I would say. Well at least we're not stuck with Symantec anymore so that's still a step forward.
The shiny reporting tools might be trimmed down a bit too, or at least made optional at install time. Nice graphs are nice but mean nothing to the average user and raw logs are often more useful to admins, so the shiny tools are really only needed on management machines (to make management types feel that they got the whole package).
There is not a single bit of irony there. There is arguably no ongoing case so the leak is not illegal, but it still seriously jeopardizes a possible trial (by compromising the possibility of a fair trial).
Given that the charges -if they are ever pressed- are likely to be "sex by surprise", which I am told carries a max fine of roughly 80 pounds*, the "trial by media" is likely to be used by the defense to have the case dismissed, and it's likely to work. More serious cases have been dismissed for less than that. Of course the defense lawyers need to be seen as fuming, but in private they must be patting each other's back.
Now to indulge in a bit of conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be overly surprised to learn that the leak was the work of a partisan of Assange, not one of his enemies.
*you read well. So much for the "seriousness of the allegations" first used to refuse the bail.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
