Posts by Doctor Syntax 42414 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"As a middle aged, balding, pot bellied man, I don't want to see adverts for Barbie dolls or frilly dresses, I want to see adverts for powertools, beer and gadgets."
Frankly, unless I'm specifically looking for something I don't want to see adverts for any of them. If I need something I'll conduct a search. When I've done that I'll try to avoid any vendor who's managed to piss me off by slinging ads at me in the past.
"My biggest worry is one day stores will just cease providing direct purchase options via CC, and you will have no choice but to go through Google or PayPal."
OTOH, if you pay through PayPal you have to trust just one business. With CC you have to trust every single place you shop to keep your CC details safe; good luck with that.
"However, I have never been asked by a website to access my Camera or Microphone unless it was legitimate for the task it was trying to do - voice calls, conferencing etc."
Why do you think all those sites which have accessed your camera and microphone for illegitimate reasons didn't ask you?
A year or so ago there was a lot of talk about Thunderbird finding a new home and the Document Foundation was mentioned. My own view was that they would do well to take over not only Thunderbird but also Seamonkey. I liked the idea of a browser free from the influences of both Google and Mozilla. Sadly I haven't heard about the Thunderbird proposals for months.
It would be called "Let's talk Bollocks". On the basis of Six episodes, containing some unseen natural history footage, will be formatted for a “vertical mobile viewing experience”, the BBC says, in what it describes as “a first for a mobile audience”. it would seem that BBC management are fluent speakers of this language and would be able to present the programme without having to recruit externally.
"it makes great sense to have a temporary ban on countries that export terrorists.
He could say he opposes serial killers working in child care and the left would protest and big tech would file lawsuits."
OK, let's try to compare those two statements rationally. Let's look at the second. Being a serial killer would be something you know about the person. Can you give any credible argument why "the left" and "big tech" would object to such a person working in child care? Really? Of course you can't.
Now let's go back and look at the first statement. Most countries that "export"* terrorists (to use your hyperbolic description) are actually populated by people who are not terrorists. So you really don't know anything much about any particular person coming from there.** This is a very different case to limiting the activities of someone of whom you know a great deal on the basis of knowledge.
It's sad that we have to give basic lessons on thinking to el Reg readers.
* Let's not forget that the US "exported" terrorism to N Ireland by failing to stop individuals and organisations financing it.
** Except, for instance, that they're just a tourist trying to transit through a US airport on their way home from holiday.
"There is also a lot of terrorist related activity in each of these countries. Some caution on folks arriving from there would seem reasonable."
OK, let's use the same logic on a different attribute. A lot of rapes are committed by males. Caution on males arriving would be reasonable. Does it still make sense? If not, why not? Assuming you got as far as answering the second question go back and review the original version in light of what you've just worked out.
"Someone with enough cojones"
The usual rejoinder on this side of the pond is "You and whose army?". That, in effect, is the question I posed. In the event of a face-off who would be responsible for enforcing or opposing and on which side would they come down.
"This order concerns a US citizen and US company, with offshore data. The precedent would be limited to such cases or similar."
If I understand the article correctly a part of the argument rests on Google moving data about between jurisdictions for their own convenience. I can very easily see a lawyer arguing that the precedent applies whatever the nationality of the data subject and getting away with it. That's similar, thin end of the wedge etc.
"That would be the 1 clause act suspending The Senate and Congress and instituting direct rule from the Oval Office."
My understanding of the US constitution is fairly restricted but an Act would indicate Congress & Senate, rather as it would indicate Hoc & Lords in the UK. So do you think they'd suspend themselves?
An Executive Order might attempt this but AIUI there are then mechanisms in place to declare the President unfit.
In the event of the excrement entering the aircon in this fashion who'd have to implement such rival orders & who would they side with?
"corporations: don't give two hoots about (their customers') privacy. If using infrastructure in the USA saves them 0.5% costs they will do so. They will give lip service to privacy, just another corporate lie."
A few cases brought under GDPR once it comes into force and they'll give more than two hoots. They'll give some substantial fines.
"There is absolutely no reason why people who live outside the US should be concerned with this ruling."
From a quick look at the article the precedent set might be somewhat wider than you think. Consider "Just because the data happened to be held outside the US without the user's knowledge shouldn't mean it is immune to discovery." Looking at this from a European perspective one can easily see some lawyer arguing to extend this to "just because the data happened to be held in the US without the user's knowledge shouldn't mean it is immune to discovery" and then another extending "happened to" to "could".
"It affects you about as much as the UK law forcing one to reveal passwords affects me."
If you were to come to the UK that law would affect you but at least it would be a deliberate action on your part. My data could be sent to the US without my permission or even knowledge, simply by doing business with a UK company which happens to use some US cloud-based services and once there it is not safe; redress is not good enough.
"American law"
AIUI the Microsoft case is still wending its way to the Supremes. If Google have any sense they'll appeal this one as far as they can. Until decisions are reached there American law on the point is still unresolved.
But there's good reason to avoid relying on any US-based business to hold information securely, just in case. There's also good reason for multinationals to consider whether the US is a fit jurisdiction in which to base their operations.
"they expect us to maintain huge ancient codebases"
That's probably the code that's paying everyone's wages, including those of devs doing all the shiny stuff. The shiny stuff will either become legacy in due course or be forgotten about while the old stuff keeps running and running.
In database work, for example, it may be even confirmed in an email from on-high that "you can leave postal addresses as one field, we'll never need anything more detailed."
The law of inverse sensitivity:
It's not important == It's critical
I must have it this way == Nobody will care except the one knob-end who'd moved onto something else, never to return, before he even finished speaking.
It won't change == It'll be the most volatile aspect of the whole system
"SMB was (is?) a local LAN service"
Generally but it relies on IP addressing, unlike the old Netware protocol which wasn't routeable. This extract from TFA doesn't mention any such restrictions:
This can be done by tricking a victim into clicking on a malicious link to a share in an email in Outlook, or by embedding in a webpage an invisible image with a source URL to an evil file server and getting the mark to visit the site using Internet Explorer, for example."
"Searching Gmail for two ancient invoices I just entered the cash total in the search box. From 1.5 GB of emails they were found almost instantly."
If I want to search old emails I search them locally. It might not be as fast as Google but the emails are right here on my own box. That includes emails from previous providers. I can't see any reason to keep them remotely: it's my mail, not Google's or anyone else's.
assemble phones for sale in India within India.
In fact, Apple already do this in Brazil to bypass import tariffs. The Brazilian factory produces just enough phones for local demand and they are the most expensive iPhones money can buy.
And a US assembly plant could operate on exactly the same basis.
If the market has a tariff wall round it and a small local plant employing as few people as possible can make the product cheaper than importing it through the wall then that's what will happen. It won't create many local jobs and it will result in the product being more expensive there; locals will be looking enviously at their neighbours.
In general, especially when taxes and tariffs are involved multinationals are able to rearrange their business to optimise outcomes for themselves when things change. The new optimum may be very different to what the government and those who voted for it intended. Your tax schedules, votes etc are only one factor in what happens. You do get what you voted for; it's just not what you thought it would be.
"Hello sir, we have been passed your details because one of your family has been in an accident recently" or whatever.
I think in the future it's going to be my wife who was injured. She's being treated in the Institute for Clinical Orthopaedics, ICO for short, in Wilmslow. Phone number 01625 545 745...
And good luck to the ambulance chaser who tries following that one up.
