Posts by Paul Smith 540 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jul 2007
And there in lies the problem.
Instead of just saying that you think the USB3 sub-system should be better, you are making personal attacks on a person it is safe to assume you have never met.
If you really think the USB3 sub-system should be better then it currently is, then why don't you fuck off and make it better then it currently is?
Abusive is about the person and not what they did. It is never useful or productive.
She's a pussy - abusive because it is about her. He's a 'tard - abusive because it is about him. She's lovely - potentially abusive because it is about her even though it could be considered complimentary. It really is getting very close to 'she is a great fuck' which is clearly abusive.
That code is f*cking shit - robust but not abusive because it is not about the person. The kernel group considers abusive behaviour acceptable and that is why I and a great many people I know have no interest in participating. If you want to call my code shit. That is fine, but you had better be able to defend your position. If you want to call me shit, you can fuck off.
It is hard to know if you are being serious or facetious. Assuming for a moment that you are being serious, then you are completely entitled to your opinion and I agree that collaboration and information exchange are the future, but that is not mutually exclusive with respecting privacy. A simple example will explain my case: I want to buy a present for my wife, advertisers know my tastes and budgets as well as hers and so can suggest the perfect present. Cool, collaboration and exchange working well as I get what I want and they get a sale. But if the privacy of my transaction is not respected and she finds out about it before the day so ruining the surprise, then whoever betrayed that privacy will earn some serious negative reputation.
Dark-web deadbeats
perverts
unmasking the scumbag
unspeakable images.
nefarious purposes
Rather emotive language, don't you think?
Given that we are talking about a country that had a shit fit over Janet Jacksons left nipple, and given that the article implies that the FBI probably has details on over 200,000 TOR users from this site alone, I have to ask if the author is actually a shill for a US three letter outfit that would like to discourage the use of TOR and other secure communications services by any body except themselves.
No more Arab Spring. No more Snowden. Of course it also means there could never be another Watergate.
Yes kiddy fiddling is a very bad thing, but no, it is not worth giving up your right to a private life, or giving free reign to governments to dictate what they think is good for you.
Cloud computing is a very effective solution to a very specific set of problems.
It is not a solution to a whole bunch of other problems where it is currently being sold. Take Office 365 as a good example of all the things wrong with current cloud marketing efforts. Office is used to write and maintain company internal and external documents. They do not require significant computing or storage resources, but would cause significant difficulties if inappropriatly accessed. What is the benefit of putting them in some one else's hands that is so great that I am willing to accept that they could deny me access to my own documents? Or expose them to all and sundry and I could do nothing about it, not even sue them? Where is the 'win' in this situation?
Apple© have successfully patented the ™ symbol are claiming that Google are in breach and are demanding that the World Trade Federation (WTF) hand over all Google's letters to them. Meanwhile Oracle have made a counter counter claim that the © symbol belongs to them and that Apple must cease and desist.
Probably the most exciting thing about this launch of a major OS from one of the worlds largest OS producers is just how unexciting it is. MS might still be huge, but they are looking increasingly like a spent force. The question now is if they will go quietly, a la DEC, or kicking and screaming and dragging the rest of the industry down with them, a la SCO?
Some minor 'elected' representative from a constituency you have never heard of wants you to drop what you are doing, fly to a country you have no interest in and answer in detail an bunch of unfocused questions that could cover any, and every aspect of your business, and in return you will get... nothing.
If said official has reason to believe a law is being broken - and remember that they are the ones who made the laws in the first place - then they have plenty of ways of having it investigated and corrected. If no law is being broken, and the officials have no power to reward attendance or punish absence, then why on earth would major CEO's want to help them aggrandise themselves.
QM theory was developed to describe phenomena that could not be explained by classical means, so the thing I take from this is that having a physical model displaying features previously only visible in the QM world removes (some of) the need for a quantum specific theories and moves us closer to a theory that joins both worlds. If, in the process, we happen to get rid of some of the 'dafter' aspects of modern physics (cough, strings, cough), then all the better.
Preparing a powerpoint sales pitch with big bold key points designed for simple minded managers to read and comprehend might not be the brightest thing to do in a public place, but cutting code? Seriously? When I used to code in C it was considered cool to able able to cram as much code into as little space as possible, but even I was never able to get enough for an even a slightly non-trivial program onto the confines of a laptop screen. I think you are perhaps taking commonsense past the point of paranoia and into the realm of stupidity.
Careful what you wish for... I had a boss who, if presented with "It's tier-3 Cortexiphan we're looking at so obviously it's topology redundant with multiple backchannels and has the full dual Dunham processor architecture behind it. With a 2 Teraflop Bishop Gating protocol, obviously." would have asked why do we need dual Dunham, single Dunham will do.
"It’s fashionable to deride paddle gearboxes, but being able to change up as you exit a roundabout means even Milton Keynes can be fun."
It was, when Jeremy Clarkson was a young man.
1) Why would you want to change UP as you exit a roundabout?
2) WTF where you doing testing a car in Milton Keynes?
and
3) Of course its all about the noise, its a bloody Alpha, what else would it be about?
Is this an attempt to punish him twice for the same crime? He obviously has spent it all if he cant afford a brief good enough to get him off, so that means there is no realistic likeyhood of him being able to pay the "fine" for a crime he is already being punished for.
The obvious thing to do then is declare himself bankrupt meaning his debtors can no longer place a lien on him, so he doesn't get the extra four years.
"3YM: Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
4YM: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
1YM: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you."
(Monty Python, Four Yokshiremen, circa 1974)
"As that chart shows, the net effect of all of this is that the US really does spend more on social welfare than anyone other than France." Correct, but not complete.
I did a report using US Census office figures that showed that while what you say is true, a significant portion of this is given to the already wealthy and rich. How much? Enough that if some of this state support was given to the poorest instead, 9.4% of ALL US householders would be pulled above the poverty line.
"Looking at the balance of probabilities, the possibility of Regin being the result of a non-nation-state coder is between slim and none," Thakur said.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the coders behind the NHS patient records debacle or the MOD procurment process are somehow better then a couple of gifted and motivated amateurs? In fact, can you name a single piece of not-shit software that can be credited to a nation-state? Even BT's fucked up Phorm was written by a private entity.
So what? That GTAT screwed up their contracts and went bust as a result is not the interesting storey here. Why not use your industry skills to tell what is happening to the businesses that used to buy GTAT machines to make saphire screens? Where will they get their machines now?
Tell us about the businesses who woke up to find their suppliers in direct competition with them, did they survive or go bust? Do they still make saphire screens or have they moved into different markets?
Also, why not tell us who you think Apple (and other) phone makers are going to buy their screens from now? Instead of going from $30 to $10, are they going to go to $60?
A sick fuck kills a woman, and posts/boasts about it on 4chan.
The same sick fuck announces that he has deliberatly arranged for a child to find his dead mother and that he intends to commit suicide by cop.
What do the sick fucks on 4chan do about it?
What is the IT angle?
Is it a sick fuck usng the internet to boast about his 'acheivements'?
Or is it the sick fucks on 4chan doing nothing to stop a drama from turning into a tragedy?
Does El Reg really believe this sick fuck deserves the 15 minutes of fame you are helping him to get?
I don't get all the comments about unacceptable behaviour and malicious damage and so on. Why is it that you expect FTDI to play nice with components it can positively identify as fakes? That the end user might not have known it was a fake isn't really relevant as if they were dupped, they can demand recourse from the seller, and if they knowingly bought a cheap knock-off, then they shouldn't be too surprised if it stops working.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like what FTDI did, but I am surprised that no one has done it before.
You have that completly backwards.
1) If you have enough money, you don't need someone else to defend your rights, you can do a damn good job defending them yourself.
2) You are also badly mistaken if you think the Tories care about profit, perhaps you are confusing them with the republicians in the US. The proper name for the tories is the Conservative party. They wish to conserve things just they way they are, so that the tories with the power, keep the power.
This is not about one individual keeping details of their drug deals on a server in Dublin, this is about MS trying to sell Office365 to every company in Europe. It looks like having every European quote, tender, offer, invoice and patent application sitting almost in within its reach has prooved too much temptation for the greed of US lawmakers and corporations.
The States has never had a tradition of respecting anyone or anything else, but when the judges are now saying that international treaties are not worth the paper they are written on, you have to ask cui bono? Who is this benefiting?
Whether or not the feds have access to the data already is irrelevent if they can't use it in court.
The reason that MS needs to win this case is because losing it will cause the collapse of the cloaud market, not just for them, but for Amazon, IBM, Google and everyone else trying to sell online services that involve offsite storage.
Corporate governence demands that the board takes all 'reasonable' measures to keep their data secure. If the feds bang on the door with a warrant or sopena, then they must mount the appropriate legal defence. If MS loses this case, then the feds would be able to issue a warrent or supeona for data from someone who might not defend it as rigourously as the board would, opening the board to the risk of being sued by their own shareholders. The means the board would refuse to use the cloud for corporate data. End of market.
Cool! Do the Sony players plug into the BOSE docking station I have in my living room? Or the logitech speakers I bring when I go travelling, the are sound like shite but I can run them on a couple of 'AA' batteries if there is no mains available.
How about the docking stations all my friends seem to have? Can I use the Sony players to play my latest music when am visiting them?
Does this mean that I could sue Google for not alerting the police that scumbags were planning to break into my flat? Or for allowing some tosser to park in my parking space? Maybe any lawers here could say if they would be complicit by having the information and not acting on it, or merely accessories after the fact by providing indirect assistence? After all, they have now proved that they are happy to read peoples mail in search of potential crime.
Google might think they were doing the right thing in this case, but I suspect that the harm they have done by proactivly playing at Big Brother will end up causing a lot more damage to society then one sicko ever could. If nothing else, sicko's lawyer can probably get the sicko off scot free by claiming that Google is the actual criminal here by knowingly transporting and delivering contraband material to his equipment without his knowledge or consent.
"Why don't the feds simply ask the Irish authorities for their help instead of bludgeoning the US tech industry to smithereens? That would be a lot simpler, quicker and would leave everyone including most users (apart from the individual(s) being investigated) entirely happy that things have been done properly."
Because they would be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms. The "Civilised World (tm)" has a concept you might have heard of known as "presumed innocent until proven guilty", the US has a shortened that to "presumed guilty".
The way I was taught, the thread has nothing to do bolt verses nut. Something is a bolt if it is fitted by applying torque to the nut and a screw if torque is applied to the head. So the bolt in picture no.2 is a bolt in most applications, but it would be a screw if it was being screwed into a threaded hole.
Bullshit! Big or small doesn't matter. They had no disaster recovery plan, so they had no chance of recovering from a diaster.
Remember that the next time you think of trusting someone else with anything you own or are responsible for, if it is important enought to worry about losing, then you must have it is more then one place, and that those places must not be reacheble from each other.
"The speakers answer"? Surely you mean the drunkards recollection of what he thinks someone else might have answered to a witty and clever question which the author cant quite recall in full detail at this time?
Whoosh right back at you.
There is absolutly nothing different about a refund in bitcoins from a refund in Pounds, Euro, Dollars, gold, pork bellies or any other unit of exchange. The one and only thing you can not do with bitcoins, which you can sometimes do with other currencies, is pretend that it never happened.
Buy a gold ring or any other volitile commodity from your local pawn shop tomorrow, and take it back the next day for a 'refund'. Maybe you will get one, and maybe they will offer to but it back from you at its new price.
So you were not only technically, intellectually and sartorially outclassed at this networking event, you got pissed as well. I have to assume that you hadn't sobered up when you wrote this excuse for an article.
Let me try to explain it as I would to a five year old.
The old fashioned pound sterling used to be a pound of sterling but people who were rich enough to own one were too posh to carry them, 'cause they were bloody heavy at almost half a kilo each. After a while, they came up with the idea of a paper version which was simply an IOU to say that you would be given the actual pound if you asked for it, but in the meantime, they would keep it in a safe place for you. It was just as good for paying for things and was easier to carry around so it became popular. Of course there were a few problems when people asked for their actual pound back, but nothing a standing army couldn't handle.
Crypto is just a little word for big mathamatics so a crypto currency is one based on a pound of crypto. Instead of carrying around big computers to do the maths on the spot, you just carry the token that shows you (or someone else) did the math.
Your confusion regarding refunds seems to be, how can I put this politely, fucked up?
If you order a £5 cup of fresh sewage and get raw sewage instead, you ask for a refund and get your £5 back. You don't get exactly the same £5 back, the one your granny wrote 'happy 1st communion' on. You get 'a' £5 note, or perhaps 5 pound coins, or any other combination of monetary tokens that add up to a fiver. What doesn't happen is that people to not pretend the transaction never happend. The transation of them giving you a cup of sewage in return for your fiver was recorded on a journal and written to a ledger and sealed when the cash drawer closed. If another transaction is needed, to cancel the sewage and refund the fiver, it also has to be recorded in the journal and written to the ledger. It doesn't matter if the fiver was a promise for a pound of silver or a token for 600 Flops.
"I have been constructing a private 'cloud' to enable a distributed organisation to access sensitive data across the internet: Why?..."
Since some of your fundemental assumptions on security and encryption are wrong, you are probaly not the best qualified person to create such a cloud. I suggest you google Diffie-Hellman key exchange to get some of the basics. Then you can revisit everything you have done so far...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
