Stupid me
I love reading about this stuff, but it makes me realise that I can't understand it and never will.
Good work - carry on.
214 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
I've written and rewritten my response to this piece about 5 times now... I've even quoted Bob Dylan's My Back Pages, and I still feel that there's something relevant there.
My considered opinion is that there's nothing to be gained here. I genuinely cannot understand the complete and utter condemnation of Damore's original transgression. Those who can understand why it's such an egregious piece or writing are so certain of their rightness that they are unable to countenance the need to explain their position.
Apart from the undoubted sincerity of Kieren on this matter, I take away nothing to help me grasp why he says what he says.
Little by little, bit by bit. Something is being taken away from us.
At one time the stated role of the ASA was to ensure that adverts were "legal decent honest and truthful". Now, it seems, they wish to control both the message and its manner of delivery so that their social engineering ambitions will be fulfilled.
If my mind has to be raped then I'd rather it was done by voracious capitalists - I know what their agenda is - to screw as much money out of me as possible. I know it, they know it. But this insidious abuse of power just makes me want to puke.
Give that a short haul flight is the equivalent of 20 years' recycling, the more money that can be taken from the poor to stop them making ludicrously bad choices and endangering the planet with their pathetic need for holidays in the sun, the better. Up the license to double its present value and bring back the workhouses!
I'm with DAM here. The let's "re-educate" everybody until their opinions fall into the Venn diagram of acceptability is kind of scary. Got to have all the unwashed conforming to the latest group think, no room for dissent.
Surely the equitable way of dealing with this would be under contract law? She'd already promised to let out the property and was reneging on that agreement.
"That while this bug sucks, it may not effect all users of systemd with those versions."
Thanks! A timely reminder that this stuff is written by journalists, technical journalists, but journalists all the same. Also that most commentards have headless chicken with dysentery syndrome.
If the video goes viral, many people are entertained. Should people not pay for their entertainment? Somebody probably gained something, I don't know, from advertising alongside the video?
Was the reason for the popularity merely the dancing baby? Or was it the combination of the efforts of the music makers and the proximity of a jiggling sprog? If it was the former then a silent video would have done, or a nice piece of royalty free music pap. Otherwise, why should YouTube, baby's mother and all, profit from this and the musicians not?
Freetards the lot of you!
Picked up a virtually unused book for £1.49 from a charity shop. Researched it a bit on my mobile, trying to please myself about what a bargain I'd got, how much money I'd saved. Now ads for that book appear every time I use the browser on my phone.
Too much Sherlock Holmes, Google chaps. In reality there is a limit to what you can infer about future intentions from past actions.
I use Chrome and Firefox on Linux. I realise the usual caveats about Google's slurping of data but for El Reg, Amazon and my banking websites, Chrome works better with less glitches and less unpredictable behaviour.
Usability and reliability trumps principles when you've got to get stuff done. Sad ain't it?
>Isn't the point of an operating sytem to provide process isolation whilst offering standardised services?
...seems that way to me. Sometimes it appears that the whole IT thing is one big circular re-invention of the wheel. I must be getting old, time to get me coat, shuffle off and tend my rapidly whitening beard.
...the authorities, that is.
Let's face it, if the terrorists were of completely sound mind and intent on doing domething naughty with a wi-fi network they probably would not have named it such. Then again, are terrorists who believe in the 72 virgins etc in possession of the complete picnic? I'd say, probably not.
So, given the nature of the adversary, it's probably a good thing if matters like this are acted upon and investigated. If only to deter the hiding of things in plain sight.
Whilst not approving of vandalism, if the Apple employee did say that the iPhone could **NOT** be bent then it seems only right and proper that potential customers could validate that claim before making a purchase.
Sounds like just the sort of thing Trading Standards should be doing to protect vulnerable consumers from the over mighty fruity behemoth.
But I was always told that if you absolutely had to allow a webserver access to a bash script or built in function then you should really completely sanitise what you send it. That is, only allow that which should be allowed. So if people are getting bitten on the backside by this then it must be sloppy practice on their part?
Having been there and done that I can categorically state that all you need to do is stop. Never take another puff. No one makes you buy cigarettes. If you truly want to stop then you will. The crutch of cutting down or nicotine replacement products does not work well because the only way of removing the addiction is to stop ingesting the chemicals that cause and feed the addiction. Yes, it's stressful. Yes, it's difficult.
Grow some cahones, man up and take responsibility for your own actions.
To those in the know about the RSPCA this will come as no surprise.
Another angle to follow would be the NSPCC - with whom the RSPCA share many characteristics and information.
Too often people look at charities and take their stated aims at face value. To be anti-RSPCA is often wilfully misconstrued as being pro animal cruelty.
That's what swapping from OS to OS does. You just have to choose the set of problems you are most happy to live with. Mostly, I end up back with the penguin - OSX, I find is too smug and sanctimonious; Windows - apart from the virus/trojan problem does tend to fail in strange esoteric ways.
A couple of weeks ago I was in a shop, one publicised by a certain J.O., when the be-gloved checkout lady coughed into said glove and continued to handle food etc with said glove.
I felt decidedly unwell for several hours after.
But I'm not dead yet.
However my point is that if we're all going to get it we may as well get it in the summer when we normally don't get flu thus leaving the winter free for the incubation of the good old traditional illnesses we have grown to love so.
That is one without the might of Amazon, they would have been forced to swallow the loss, and recompense the copyright owners whilst allowing all happy Kindle holders continued access to 1984 or whatever.
Why is it that whenever a big corporation makes a "mistake" they get their customers to pay for it?
Tish!
I've never seen one. Mine -dual processor G5 - rapidly lost its screen, keyboard, mouse and built in DVD drive. Now it runs for perhaps 5 mins before collapsing. And its not just me. All over Mac people are having to have new "logic" boards and considering it perfectly normal.
Well let me tell you Mac Boiz, EVERY PC I have owned since time began has been 100% hardware reliable. The Operating System? Well that;s a different story - remedied by inserting a penguin flavoured disk in the appropriate orifice.
"I often wonder why organ donation isn't an opt-out system, apart from religi-tards I don't know anyone who objects to the process."
Because, why should I give for free something that has taken me a lifetime of loving care and maintenance? I take regular exercise, I don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat a careful balanced diet. The arrogance of the State such that they think they can claim ownership even in death. Now if there were a sweetener in the form of a payment to my nearest and dearest maybe representing somewhere near the amount the health service would save by saving someone from a lifetime of dialysis - then I may consider. Otherwise MY meat is reserved for burial in MY garden to benefit MY roses.
The sheer impertinence, the lefty-pinko-communist thought process that says that just because someone "needs" something they can have it forcefully removed from my dead body. Most transplant recipients have a lifetime of medication anyway. So it's not like joy and laughter and sun ever after - just even more drain on the overstretched NHS budget.
Well, here's the thing. We're all gonna die. Some people sooner than others. That's just the way it is. If you don't like it take it up with God. Heaven forfend that my liver could end up in someone like George Best. What a yellow, jaundiced waste of space.
And we have to assume that all transplant doctors are angels. Who's to say that they don't have a vested interest in declaring someone dead who's maybe just feeling a bit peaky. How many people can benefit from one person's death? I'm not sure, but I heard that by the time all the corneas and other bits of gristle are taken into account it can be as many as 20. What's one life to save 20?
So, why not do like they do in China - harvest from the prisoner population?
...said that alongside water and electricity, broadband is one of life's essentials.
Here's an experiment for you. Take 3 cabinet ministers and deprive one of them of water, one of electricity and one of broadband and see which one dies first. If necessary take the whole parliamentary nu-lab party and repeat until absolutely sure, or all are dead, however long it takes.