* Posts by glennog 1

13 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Jul 2009

Google explains 'why' ads target user's Gmail

glennog 1
Big Brother

Content inspection?

In the UK it is illegal to inspect the contents of packets, although it is perfectly legal to carry out Deep Packet Inspection to determine the 'nature' of the data. It's highly unlikely, though (if not impossible) to glean any information on the content of an email simply from its TCP headers. How, then, does Google manage to target ads based on email contents, if they are unable to see those contents? Sounds decidedly dodgy to me, and I suspect their latest announcement is meant to head off criticism rather than actually alay fears.

Place your data centre in a handy container

glennog 1

Seriously behind the times

OMG Seriously? This is news? Capgemini did a modular data centre in Swindon aaaaages ago, and they got the PUE down to 1.04. C'mon El Reg, I expect more from you than this clearly sucking-up-to-the-guys-paying-for-the-banner type of news-that-isn't-news.


glennog 1

It's not a NASA facility...

it's a very naughty boy.

Seriously though, that pin in the map isn't a facility icon... If you zoom right out, you'll see the real NASA icons in the USA, not surprisingly. When I ran the app, the pin was placed in my living room... Let the rumours of why your pin was in a field commence.

Moderatrix kisses the Reg goodbye

glennog 1

So sad, so long

Your quips, side-swipes and reckless mirth will be sorely missed. You were a credit to El Reg. Good luck in dungeons new. x

Esc for the obvious reason

Cisco rolls out data center pods

glennog 1
Thumb Up

What about Merlin

No mention of Capgemini's Merlin datacenter?

ICO: Whitehall has improved data security

glennog 1

It's not just govt...

... that are reactive rather than proactive. Business from the very small to the very large are equally guilty - think TJX, think HSBC, and they're just the high-profile ones. Often it's not until you have a breach that you know something has a vulnerability. You can point at penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, data security and the likes, and they are all very good things to point at, but infosec isn't something you 'do', it's something you 'are'. It's a constant cat-and-mouse game between those who seek to protect information and those who seek to obtain information. Absolutely some of the more blunderous problems should never have happened, but the fact that things have improved considerably should be applauded.

Mine's the one with the CISSP 10 Domains of InfoSec Guidebook in the (extremely large) pocket

Gov slams critical database report as opaque, flawed, inaccurate

glennog 1

Pre-election manoevring?

It reads more like a party-political positioning document issued by the Tories than an actual report by an interested party. There's a lot of vagueness and statements which mean very little once you scratch the surface of their sensationalism. The recommendations themselves are pretty lame, and in most cases pretty meaningless too.

Government bashers do my head in, to be honest - and i mean the proper bashers, not just the eternal cynics. I personally like a little cynicism - it's healthier than blindly trusting everything everybody tells you... No, those bashers need to get out a little more, read a book or two on something other than conspiracy stories, meet a girl, get a life. Either that or crawl off to some corner of the world and keep their stupid-ass opinions to themselves.

Wikisupremes eject UK Wikispokesman from inner circle

glennog 1

Oversight schmoversight

Surely the removal from public view of an article/edit/whogivesashit has the same public effect as the deletion of that same article/edit/whogivesashit... 'Oversight' is still a very dubious term for the removal from public consumption of an article/edit/whogivesashit, and exemplifies a very cynical attitude towards itself/its users/whogivesashit.

But to reiterate on a recurring theme both in this post and in the comments in general... Who really gives a shit? It's Wikipedia! We laugh at journos who use it as an authoritative source of information, we amuse ourselves with premature stories of the death of celebs (some of whom I am sure would benefit from some truthfulness in those stories), and we revel in the glory of their misfortunes when they drop the inevitable bollock from time to time. Long may they continue to be a source of hilarity and unintended comedic talent.

Hacktivists ransack Hitler defender's email

glennog 1

I'm a moderate libertarian...

... and I really couldn't give a flying fuck what David Irving thinks, posts or says. Let him get on with his life, and I'll get on with mine. How's that for freedom of speech/though/expression.

Royal Mail website goes on strike

glennog 1


As the site is back up, maybe that indicates the strike will be a fart-in-a-wind-tunnel affair too

Rosetta Stone rocks Google with trademark lawsuit

glennog 1

"It's completely normal ..."

" ... for a magazine to run Ford ads opposite of an article about Toyota..."

but clearly not okay to run an ad for a cheap Chinese imitation using the same logos and trademarks. If 'Chinese Search & Ads' were to tout themselves using keywords such as 'Google', I'm pretty sure somebody in Mountain View would have a Googlefit (TM)

TechCrunch dubs Linux a 'big ol’ bag of drivers'

glennog 1

I DO agree with everything...

but I completely FAIL to understand how somebody (yes Michael, I'm looking at you) can agree with 'just about everything' while simultaneously not agreeing with 'most'. FAILure to grasp the English language I think.

Web Apps are certainly not a perfect replacement (atm) for the current generation of business software. No, progress has FAILed to be remarkable. What, do you think MS are not going to add more bloat in the guise of features to their business apps while webapps catch up? FAILure to grasp basic business sense, too.

Web apps are an important compliment to 'traditional' software, but there's no way they're ever going to replace the "'software running on a pc' paradigm". WTF? Come on dude, 'software running on a PC paradigm'? You should lay off the acid - what do you expect apps to run on, whether they're web apps or real apps? Your dishwasher? FAILuer to understand, well, just about everything about technology really.

And finally... "applications running in a browser, aka 'web applications'" Of course they're fucking web applications... That's why it's called a fucking Web Browser. And no, not all of them run "on the web", but you're FAILing to distinguish between internal web services and the world-wide-web. They're all 'web's, just not all of them are publicly accessible. That's why the software that serves them are called Web Servers, or Web Application Servers, and half of the web apps that run have the suffix 'war' for 'Web ARchive'. Total FAILure to understand the web, web servers, web apps, web app servers, the whole fuckin shebang.

Now how d'ya like THAT for sarcasm.


(And I count 8 FAILs - and I'm only just getting started... My colleagues are gonna hate me by the end of the day)

US websites buckle under sustained DDoS attacks

glennog 1

Successful crippling of US and SK Infrastructure

At least that's what the NK propaganda will read... Just like they figured they could get away with photoshopping Kim Wrong Il into a photograph while he was out of the game for a while... Just like when they successfully launched a satellite into orbit despite it splashing down somewhere in the pacific. What's truly worse is they probably did think they could bring down national infrastructure by DDoSing a few websites.

Ooh, ooh, please don't DDoS me, it hurts so much more than your failed ballistic missiles ever could. In fact, yeah, do that instead, DDoS me... It really did hurt us, you nearly brought the entire country to it's knees... Honest. Truly it did.