£1369 a pint??
Don't let my local know. Beer's expensive enough there already.
877 posts • joined 10 Jun 2010
Why is this being presented as a new version?
I've done a bit of digging to see whether there are any useful changes under the hood, which might justify the whole-number version increment. The only useful thing I can find is the DirectStorage stuff really, The TPM excitement kind of infers maybe there are security improvements, but if so, they're not telling us anything about them. The rest just seems to be cosmetic.
So if there are no actual OS changes, why the new version number? Why would anyone pay for this instead of just continuing to use W10? (Yes I know it's free for the moment...) Why would W10 support be ending if W11 is the same OS with a different skin?
I think I'll just put up with having old-fashioned left-hand-side start menu (tbf it's Start8) and square corners on my gaming machine a while yet.
This new 15% corporate tax rate will only apply to those companies with a profit margin of at least 10%. Easily fixed with a bit of clever accounting, and the big tech companies can afford clever accountants.
We'll see them all on margins of 9.99% and all this much-lauded new tax will quietly go away.
Just like lots of phones you see in TV shows. Our hero/heroine needs to read something off someone's phone, and all they seem to need to do is get hold of the phone to have complete access. Yes, even if the owner is now dead.
Although TBF there probably ARE a lot of people out there with 000000 as their passcode.
It's the old problem. If we could sufficiently define what we want and how it works then we might be ok - but we can't.
I can't remember which AI pioneer it was who, when challenged that AI could never be intelligent, replied "You define intelligence and I'll build you a machine that does that".
There is no deterrent effect with these fines. The finees already know that they can just wind up their company and start all over again without handing over a penny. So, announcing these fines deters nobody.
It might make good publicity amongst the unwashed I suppose, but that's not the point.
@El Reg - perhaps an FOI request to find out how many of these fines over the last couple of years have actually been paid? That might make for entertaining questions in Parliament perhaps...
Agreed. It's common that organisations of all sizes rely on their workers giving them time for free. I stopped playing that game some years ago when I realised that all I was doing was giving my (large) company my free time so they could make a better profit.
It's been the case with several companies I've worked for where they say "you're not allowed to book more than 40 hours pw no matter how many you've actually done". It's just a way of hiding the fact that they're getting free labour.
This, of course, benefits the managers and the shareholders. It doesn't benefit the ones whose time is being given.
TL;DR: Pay me for my time or fuck off.
The proposed law doesn't restrict when you can work. It just restricts when you can be forced to work. If you want to do this voluntarily, then you would be free to do so.
A bit like the European Working Time Directive, which was misrepresented by politicians for years.
Ah I see - I sit corrected, thanks.
Yes Popper's stuff is about theories being at least theoretically disprovable. So, GR, Newton's/Boyles Laws etc are all "scientific", and still withstand all efforts to disprove them - which is what I now understand you were getting at.
Unlike, say, conspiracy theories, which will just mutate every time they are challenged, and therefore can never be disproven..
Hmm. If a theory is "really hard to disprove" then it starts to flirt with being non-scientific (in Karl Popper's terms*), and starts to become philosophy/religion/superstition (delete according to taste) instead.
However, I agree that we're probably between theories at the moment, both with Cosmology and Physics. The Dark Matter problem needs some testable assertions, and Quantum Physics has gaps that we're filling arbitrarily (even though it makes very successful predictions). So, I wait with eagerness for the new theories to come along, with better explanations.
* Interestingly enough, according to Popper's principles, Astrology can be called a scientific theory, as it makes falsifiable assertions ("you will meet a tall handsome stranger..."). It's just that it' keeps getting proven wrong.
With all of these things, the best approach is to say to the politicians "you first".
Let's start tracking the politicians' movements and making them public. Then we'll see how quickly this would go away.
Likewise encryption (publish all politicians' whatsapp messages), plus any number of other things you can think of - even declaring war. IMO if any politician votes to go to war, they should be issued a rifle and sent to the front line, in harm's way. I suspect this might make quite a change in attitudes...
"The enlightened Georgians were hoping a change of environment would reform the criminal classes into productive citizens"
No. They were just shipping their convicts to a dumping ground the far side of the world to use them as the basis for colonisation of a new land. This was necessary as the previous dumping ground had become unavailable due to the American War of Independence.
There was no chance of repatriation if someone did become a "productive citizen".
Hardly a "fishing fleet" they were facing there, but it must have been highly embarrassing for the Russians to sail their fleet half-way round the world to Tsushima just to have it sunk there.
It would have been much more efficient to just scuttle the fleet after the debacle with the British fishing boats on the Dogger Bank, and save everyone a lot of time, money and effort.
HMS Defender "happened" to have both a BBC and a Daily Mail journalist on board. I don't have a picture of what's normal on RN ships, but I'd guess this isn't, which points to the idea that this whole affair was premeditated. Now it's interesting that it's all being downplayed by the UK government, which makes me wonder about the whole exercise. Surely if the UK is making a point about freedom of navigation and support for Ukraine, then downplaying it is the wrong approach?
I agree with the previous poster that Putin's response to the coup in Ukraine caught the West off-guard. Had the coup worked properly, it would have been a strategic masterstroke - cutting Russia off from the Black Sea and gaining control over the Nordstream pipeline and therefore the Russian gas supply to Europe. Now it's all a bit embarrassing, as can be seen from the US's frankly hysterical reaction to the building of Nordstream 2 (FFS not only sanctioning Russian companies for building a pipeline carrying Russian gas across Russia but also threatening to sanction the mayor of the German town where it's coming ashore). There's not going to be any way short of military action that Putin's going to leave the Crimea, so in the long term we're just going to have to live with it. Bugger.
Unfortunately, I think that we'll see Western support for Ukraine fading over time now, particularly once Nordstream 2 starts pumping gas into Germany. What's left of Ukraine won't have much strategic importance to the West, and the old troubles with corruption there haven't gone away. It's a pity - it would be nice to see a whole, clean, independent Ukraine, but I can't see how that can happen now.
Unfortunately, I'd guess that the other 2/3 were just getting their Risk/Reward calculations wrong.
I've been in a lot of places where Those On High run their businesses with a lot of risk - for example, not spending money on proper security. The rewards of that approach can be high for them, providing they don't get hit during their incumbency. Sometimes I have actually wondered whether they actively take this approach, or just stick their fingers in their ears and hope.
Even more unfortunate is the fact that they will get to keep the rewards and it's the company who pays for the impact of the failure.
TalkTalk was the classic example. The downside of the TalkTalk hack was that it demonstrated that the C-Level crew can get away with even such an egregious failure, with a few lies about "our customers' security is our highest priority". The TalkTalk debacle doesn't seem to have done Dido Harding's career the damage it should have done.
(<Deity(s)> forbid she actually gets the job of heading the NHS. If that happens, I'm leaving the country.)
It's funny that these bodies never publish analyses showing whether money was actually saved by outsourcing over time, instead of just the year in which it was done.
It's almost as if nobody wants to look, and that comes from Ministerial level down.
And then you get the situation where the UK Treasurer is married to the daughter of Mr Infosys...
There are a lot of people out there who actually own their copy of Win10. That goes against the "we want to be on your direct debit list" philosophy that M$ is trying to pursue (along with most other companies).
So, they've realised that they've fucked up with declaring W10 the "last version". That means that those people don't need to give M$ more money. So, now they're going back to their old habits of releasing new versions regularly so the people who own a copy then need to pay again.
I'm not "justifying" at all - I'm very clear that the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs is appalling and should be challenged and penalised. Likewise their approach to pervasive surveillance, social control etc.
What I am doing is pointing out that there's plenty of instances on "our" side that also need challenging and penalising, and we seem to prefer not to look at those.
1. "Hypothetical" contract? No. Ours are ACTUAL contracts. Signed & sealed. Surely calling them "hypothetical" is an error in law then?
2. Substitution: The quoted impediments to substitution - end client approval, vetting etc - also apply when the big boys provide staff. Then surely this means all of the people provided by TCS/Wipro/Crapita/Accenture/whoever are also disguised employees of the end client?
"Russian spies bringing nerve gas and explosives" - really? What decade are you in? What makes you think Putin even gives a shit about Britain?
Yes we've had Russian spies here recently - busy trying to kill a Russian double agent. Yes, completely innocent British people were harmed or killed, but it was hardly an attempt to bring down Britain. Imagine some of Our Brave Lads sneaking into Russia to off some notorious British double agent (unfortunately killing/harming some innocents). What would you call that? An attempt to bring down the Russian government?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021