Re: "We're listening to your feedback"
"It's still the same crap that was here last week."
Give us time to work it out, or everyone'll be screaming we fucked up all over again.
C.
3493 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
"The articles have a huge, space wasting picture that has fuck all to do with the content."
The aim is to have a strong image per story. Yes, we mostly deal with words, but a lot of what we write about – particle colliders, robots, pictures from space, server p0rn, screenshots, spaceplanes, amazing machines, etc – have great photos that speak volumes.
Maybe the pic should be optional, but it's not supposed to be a "space wasting picture that has fuck all to do" with the article.
"a bunch of useless 'social media' buttons"
Social can be a massive driver of traffic, which in the end funds the journalism. Just because you don't share stuff on Twitter or Facebook doesn't mean we should ignore it.
C.
"Guys, tell us something, or are you just hoping the furore will disappear if you do nothing for long enough?"
We've kinda been inundated to reply to every reader comment. I'm personally a bit surprised to see the number of people who've registered just to say they hate it.
FWIW we are listening and planning what to do next.
Again, personally speaking and not wishing to pour fuel on the fire, but I'm wondering what the problem is with reading the headlines on the front page? The font may be a little big for your liking, but ... it's still the same 3 column design broken up a little.
Don't go nuts, we're all human here. Some people seem to be treating the redesign as tantamount to physical assault.
Is it mainly the front page you hate? The article pages look so much cleaner IMHO.
C.
Thanks for the feedback; this is the reason why we have a comments section – we report on what's happened, or said, and people can weigh in with their opinions. Like reader letters in Private Eye.
I've tweaked the Direct.gov.uk ––> GOV.UK section with extra context: you're right to point out that chunks of direct.gov.uk still hang around.
FWIW we didn't repeat the GDS's claim it's saved 10bn quid nor the GDP stuff. I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole. And The Register has previously covered the MIA ID system. Also Kieren McCarthy, the article author, is a bloke. So I don't know where this Miss McCarthy comes from.
C.
"Since Justin Amash is also the only member of Congress to explain every vote he makes on his Facebook page, I'll let him explain"
Yes, yes. Some people didn't like it. Got it. I've added a link to his post. I think the piece is fair: we do say *some* of the NSA's spying operations – not a complete shutdown of domestic surveillance.
C.
Well, we in the office are largely in support of the dude. He made a mistake picking that shirt; it's a bit mad for the moment. And then the internet got upset. And now he's apologized, in a heartbreaking way.
Just throwing it out there for debate. But we're not condemning the guy.
C.
The 6502 is a beautiful thing.
(Though I'm a wuss. I skipped 6502 as a youngster and went straight to ARMv2a.)
C.
"In this case they've made themselves look very stupid."
Yeah, really stupid. Good grief.
C.
"'pole dancer girlfriend' headline is a cheap insult. Shame on you Reg. AGAIN."
I knew it, I knew someone would post something like that. As I was walking home from work, and thinking over the headline, I knew someone – someone filled with righteous rage and blinded by the desire to root out misogyny – would stumble down the logic well.
Here's the question – riddle me this:
What's insulting about being a pole dancer? Insulting to you? Sounds like you're being awfully judgmental. Turn the mirror on yourself.
There is no "shame" here.
C.
We were pretty pleased for him in the SF office; good on them. Glad they made it work.
PS: If you're upset about these latest revelations of his private life, I urge you to reread the article all the way to the bottom and apply critical thought. In fact, read the Intercept's article, all of it. These lines from Greenwald are crucial:
"Vital to the U.S. government and its assorted loyalists in the commentariat is to depict whistleblowers as destined to live miserable lives ... But the fact that he is now living in domestic bliss as well, with his long-term girlfriend whom he loves, should forever put to rest the absurd campaign to depict his life as grim and dank."
C.
"Can we please stop calling criminals "hackers" for crying out loud!"
No. You've lost control of the word, I'm afraid. When editing articles, I tend to prefer crooks, criminals, miscreants, thieves, attackers, infiltrators, spies, crims, villains, and perps over hackers.
But sometimes hackers will do.
C.
"So is this a problem just for CGI?"
No. Some DHCP clients, OpenSSH, etc anything that passes user input into an environment variable for Bash to read (and accidentally execute). And even if your program is clean, if it spawns a child that launches another script that invokes Bash, you're still at risk because the env var is still there lingering in the background.
It won't affect everything, but just enough to be a PITA.
C.
"El Reg don't do keyword scanning"
Correct. Pretty much all your post is spot on.
"The Register have said they don't have mods, but their subbies and whichever hacks have a minute spare go on the forums to try to keep order."
Again, true.
"Thirdly this is a pretty damned lenient forum."
I'm glad you think so :) Pretty much anything goes as long as it's not going to get us in trouble or scare off others from taking part. (This is my summary of the rules; not a replacement of them.)
C.
"Am I down on some kind of dissident list?"
No, you were posting on one of Andrew's articles, so you went into a queue. Nothing personal; all of Andrew's stories require pre-mod to keep away the anti-Andrew brigade.
That's the size of it.
C.