Posts by Just Enough 783 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jul 2014
"as the move to social media is largely being carried out by wealthy and middle-class kids who can afford the equipment."
What equipment? I can't think of much that is significantly more expensive than buying spray paint. The hardware is cheap, the software is cheap and can be pirated if you're an edgy teenager with no cash.
So what are they on about?
"I bet the original inventors of these patents got a one-time bonus of €1000 or so"
You seem a bit confused about how things work in the real world.
The original inventors got a full time job that paid a salary for the duration of the time it took to invent. The company that employed them took the risk of paying them all that time when it could have amounted to nothing. The company therefore rightfully owned the patent and got the profit from it, otherwise why would they employ them?
"Now some company that had nothing to do with the invention at all will get free money"
The company that had nothing to do with the invention paid for that patent. They got nothing for free. They thought they could make money from it. Otherwise, why would they buy it?
They paid the company who owned the patent, who obviously needed/wanted money upfront and therefore sold the patent. Otherwise, why would they sell it?
You have no idea what an IP troll is. Purchasing a patent does not make you an IP troll.
IP trolling is when you attempt to register a patent, or extend the range of an existing patent, into areas that clearly do not belong to you and you have no credible claim to.
Purchasing a patent that is already in force and being paid for is simply a matter of buying an asset. The company selling it get a return on the work they did in developing the technology, the company buying it invest in something that will give them a return on what they paid for it.
If you forbid the buying of patents you significantly devalue the companies that develop the technology. Those patents are their prime asset. If you devalue the companies, you significantly limit their ability to invest in further development. Everyone loses.
Whether the new owner of the patent is playing fair in establishing a new licensing deal (after the previous one obviously expired) is a different matter and the point of FRAND.
Everyone does stupid things as a teenager. Most of us are fortunate to have them lost in the mists of time, and possibly we are the only ones who even remember them. We cringe when we recall them. We vow never to let it happen again. That's what you call a personal learning experience.
Today's teenager's moment of stupidity invariably gets recorded in some way for prosperity, and is disseminated out into the internet within minutes. It remains out there, forever and unforgotten, to be experienced anew again and again by who knows who. That's what you call a never-ending public humiliation.
It's pretty terrifying if you think about it.
"ISP's profit on providing a hardware service is surprisingly slim, .. so why shouldn't they .. sell your soul to advertisers to make a profit?"
If they don't think they are making enough profit in the ISP business, then their solution is to either put up their prices, and see if the market will bear it, or get out of the ISP business.
What they are wanting to do here is bolt-on a side-line business that their customers have no option but to co-operate in. One that benefits them, but makes their service worse for their customers. If it wasn't for the fact that all the other companies want the same, no company would dare try it.
It's like employing a painter to paint your house, only to find that he's also going to secretly run a fast-food restaurant out your kitchen. Because the profit margins in painting are slim and why shouldn't painters get some of those fast-food profits too?. And you don't get any choice because all other painters are likely to do the same.
When you have a trashed server that needs to be forensically examined for a prosecution, what would you rather do in order to get you business back up and running ASAP?
- Wait until it has been examined, then restore a backup, then examine it again to see what other nasty surprises might have been restored from the backup, before finally trusting it to start working with again?
- Get in a new server, a clean install and a system you can trust ?
"marked to only talk to people in the UK"
Unfortunately this is probably referred to as the "racist" flag, rather than a "doesn't want shoddy customer support on the cheap flag".
I've no problem dealing with Indian customer support, as long as the person I'm talking to understands me, and vice-versa, and has an appropriate level of expertise. Sadly it's often the case you're talking to someone who is working from a fixed script, and whose only qualification is that they are cheaper than a UK based employee. If your problem isn't on their list of FAQs, you may as well be talking to the cat.
"Backing any Indiegogo project is always a complete gamble"
That's exactly what it is. Yet you still get people like the guy on facebook in this article complaining about how he "ordered a Vega +". No, he didn't. He invested money in a company in the hope that they would give him one as a dividend. The company is failing, his investment is likely lost. He gets nothing.
I lost the will to read any further about a third of the way in. Not so much TL;DR, as too complicated, too many names dropping in and out, too much dodgy dealing and too many grown adults behaving like children.
Producing this console should have been technically simple. But the chances of it happening are zero in this boardroom chaos. Crowdfunding backers should say good-bye to their money and, if they really must indulge in a regular dose of nostalgia, use one of the many emulators available.
Could it be any more obvious that this was written either by an employee of Sky, or someone whose entire life revolves around its output? They cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of contract with a media company and either a dish on the side of their house, or a cable. They've no idea that many watch TV through an aerial.
> 1) It supposed to be impartial... is it? Or does it support the Left?
The impartiality of the BBC can be proven by the fact that right-wingers always complain about it being a hot bed of politically correct luvvies, and left-wingers always complain about it being part of the privileged establishment.
>2) Does it produce content that the majority of people want to watch or does it tick boxes for political correctness?
Have you ever seen BBC1 Saturday Night telly? You don't get more mainsteam.
The difference between memories and social media/phones/servers/email is that memories are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The FBI cannot seize your memories, and while you can be compelled to divulge them, you always have the following options;
- Say you don't remember.
- Misrepresent what you remember.
- Omit parts of what you remember.
- Lie about what you remember.
So it's a very misleading comparison. Memories are easy to keep private.
Sounds like you are describing related functionality, not the same functionality. Let me point out the key words there;
* "hover"
* "the line of code above the opening brace"
But you're complaining that VS has new features because they are similar to other text editors? On that basis, we may as well stop development of all text editors right now. Regardless of how useful new features might be, nothing that anyone could now add is going to be totally unique.
"Fans will be able to enjoy two live matches a night for the first time."
No we won't. Because we are still waiting on you upgrading the broadband provision in our area.
And it's worth pointing out that the reason we won't be getting these matches on our televisions is not because our broadband is too laggy, but because BT simply will not supply it on the old broadband technology we have. So just another case of BT announcing something with a big fanfare, and then informing people that they're not among the chosen allowed to get it.
Just to let you know, bombastic bob, that I down-voted your post purely on the basis of your use of "OBAKA".
Sorry about that, but I usually find any view that includes childish name-calling to be deficient in logic, reason and facts. I don't see anything in your post to change that estimation.
Please try again later when you can discuss things like an adult. And preferably without the all-caps shouting.
What's particularly gob-smacking is that apparently their data has been already hijacked 3 times for ransom. Why did they make no attempt to fix the situation the first, second or third times?
'Hey boss, it's happened again!'
'Oh FFS! Give them the money!'
'Ok. We look at securing the database now?'
'No. The chances of this happening yet again must be astronomical!'
What do you suspect they will do?
Plant a virus in Android that activates on detecting a Gemini? Launch a military strike on the Gemini offices?
Google already exist in a market where other Android devices compete with them. They seem happy about it and aren't short on profits. What makes this any different?
MWC, PDA, CCS, HMD, TCL, AR, VR, HTC, LG, OLED, LTE
Ok. I recognise most of the unnecessary acronyms in this article. But HMD? What's that? Why is it just dropped into the article without explanation?
And would it be ok if we just assume that this article is not having to fit in a tweet and can use grown up, full words sometimes?
Everything on the Android works to the assumption that you'll be wanting to sync all your data through to google. So much so that everything installs on that basis, and you then must then find and switch the sync option off for every aspect of the OS and app that does it. But by then, of course, it is already too late. In the minute it has taken you to turn it off, your data has already been sent to google, and don't imagine they're ever letting it go.
"Did she tell him she was uncomfortable before going to HR? What did he actually say? What was the context?"
You'd think that Uber doesn't employ morons for managers. But what exactly about sending a brand new staff member messages about your problems getting laid at work, and your open relationship with your girlfriend, does this particular moron think is acceptable managerial behaviour?
In what "context" is it ever ok to discuss your sex life with a member of your staff who you barely know? I can see how it might be ok with a long-term team member, who you know well, who knows you well, with whom you have a personal friendship. But a new team member? A relative stranger? On their first day? If this guy was just a co-worker, it would be creepy, truly pathetic and sexual harassment. The fact he was her manager makes it all the above, plus a misuse of his position.
So how much of a moron does the manager need to be, to need it first explained to him that this might, just possibly, make someone "uncomfortable"?
Anecdotal evidence isn't much to go by. My experience is the exact opposite.
Since I bought a tablet I do most of my home browsing/emailing/streaming on it. Most of my internet "consuming" in fact. I do not need to go sit in front of a computer. I do enough of that at work.
I don't use my phone simply because it is a fraction of the size. Why would I use it when there is a tablet that's just as easily to hand?
>a lot of schadenfreude right now.
Really? You're deriving pleasure out of seeing this failure? How very cold-hearted of you.
Any time I read these kind of stories I'm filled with relief that I'm not in the team that has to fix the mess, and have nothing but sympathy for them. We've all experienced screw ups like this, we all know what a stressful experience they are.
Yes, they messed up and should have tested their backups. But I take no pleasure out of seeing others' work go tits-up or lost.
I see you follow the Trump method of addressing valid criticism; Point at someone else and some other entirely unrelated issue and wail "But what about them! Don't pick on me! Look at them!"
Fact is that Linux application documentation is frequently pathetically sparse and often out-dated, and your average developer does use "read the source" as an excuse for this situation.
Failings with Microsoft's documentation are an entirely different matter and completely irrelevant here.
"a consensus is by definition right,"
No, a consensus is not by definition right, and you won't find anyone suggesting it is, so please put away this strawman.
But a consensus is most likely to be right because it has arisen through multiple independent experiments and research results that are all broadly in agreement. Therefore the consensus best fits what our best understanding of the real world is. Consensus can change, but only in the light of other experiments, research and verification. This is what we call "science".
Contrast this with "I don't believe consensus simply because I don't like it". A position you are welcome to take, but doesn't really withstand much analysis and fools no-one but yourself.
"The point" would be a whole lot clearer in the article actually explained that weight loss was one of the aims of the change in diet. Is Huel all about bulking up, or slimming down? We aren't told. Since he has previously documented about long term health problems, loss of energy, and inability to prepare meals, it's not unreasonable to think Mr Martinson is significantly under-weight and weight-gain is the intention.
So when the article just drops into the discussion these weight loses, we are clueless as to whether this is a good thing or not. Does it indicate success for the product? Or is it all going wrong and making Mr Martinson weight an even greater cause for concern? It's not until the end that we can infer that weight loss was the aim.
As to whether 4kg in a fortnight is extreme or not, well it rather depends on your starting weight. But again we're not given any hints to what this might be.
Good article, just a bit of clarity as to the purpose of the exercise at the start would have helped. And why the headline focused on something that the article explained specifically didn't happen?
"We're in an age where it's not politically correct to say that an individual is at fault for something."
What a ridiculous statement. What is getting charged with manslaughter saying about this individual? It looks very like a move intended to assign fault to me. And are you suggesting that the family's lawyer decided not to sue him, simply because it's not "politically correct"? I find it very hard to believe that this entered into their considerations one bit.
The age we are in is one where it's worth lawyers time punting a lawsuit about anything if there's money in it. The only reason they're not suing the individual is because, presumably, that individual doesn't have heaps of cash and the case against his insurer is limited. That does not mean they don't think the individual is at fault.
And the idea that an app could be disabled, simply because it's moving fast, is obviously not a solution. The user could be a passenger in the car, or train, boat, plane etc.
When the UK exits the EU (whatever the hell that actually means) then they will not, at a stroke, just declare all EU legislation null and void. There are EU regulations that no-one wants rid of, no matter what their political leanings. So no-one is going to suddenly declare that everything that was illegal yesterday, is now legal today. That would be chaos and a very bad idea.
What is far more likely is that the EU regulations are adopted en-mass into the UK, and then we spend the next 40 years picking through them one by one, discarding the ones disliked by the whichever government is in power at the time.
Yes, you may well be of the opinion that this will be a colossal waste of time and money. But that's Brexit for you.
Well that's the message we should all be taking from these shenanigans. All tech companies play the same games with patents. Nokia sues Apple, who sues Samsung, who sues Apple, who sues Nokia. And so the lawyer-go-round never stops.
Frankly it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the real world and I've stopped caring who wins/loses.
"These anti-Trump Americans still unable to reconcile with the Election Verdict are sending out a very bad message to other democracies."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! You think any democracy on the planet is still looking towards the US electoral process for "a message"? Americans still like to believe that they have a model democracy, when in fact it's a two party duopoly governed by vested interests. Following the utter shambles that was the latest election, and America has absolutely nothing to show other democracies. The US election made a mockery of the word "democracy" long before now.
From what was actually said by Jimbo;
"Andrew Orlowski once trumpted a claim that Wikipedia was "Khmer Rouge in diapers""
Now trumpted isn't actually a word, but I'd say he meant "trumpeted", meaning "To sound or proclaim loudly." That is not attributing the claim to Orlowski. It is saying he repeated and amplified a claim in one of his own articles, in this case from a reader from a comments section.
The time Wikipedians spend contributing, and the amount of money Wikimedia has are not related issues.
Say Wikimedia had billions and Jimbo was rolling around in heaps of gold, that would not change how I contribute to Wikipedia. That is because I do not believe editors should be paid because that introduces a conflict of interest to the compiling of knowledge. It isn't a conflict of interest that can't be overcome, but I believe it is one is far better avoiding entirely.
That is not to say that Wikimedia having billions, and Jimbo rolling in gold, is not an issue that needs looked at. But it does not change what I said above.
While there are questions that the Wikimedia Foundation need to answer regarding their fund-raising and expenditure, I'm always puzzled by The Register's constant fretting about the plight of unpaid Wikipedians. The facts are;
A/ There is no demand from Wikipedians that they be paid.
B/ Many worry that the introduction of a financial incentive to editing will bring many problems with it.
C/ No Wikipedians are forced to work for Wikipedia. If they feel under-valued and deserved paid, then they are entirely free to cease editing.
D/ What business of The Register is it how Wikipedians spend their free time?
"yeah, that's alright, you're a murderer but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
"yeah, that's alright, you're a bank robber but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
"yeah, that's alright, you're a shoplfter but we'll give your children a free education anyway"
You're absolutely right. We should start withholding education from the children of criminals. Anything less is just encouraging them. /s
I think you'll find that technically my bedroom is actually "living space" because it is used for more than just a bed, and so your rules about tidying bedrooms therefore do not apply.
Technically my car is not being driven by my cat, because I am supervising it. Therefore your rules on cars being driven by pets do not apply.
"Yes, if it wasn't for that typo, we never would have learned that:"
Perhaps true, but rather missing the bigger picture. The purpose of these hacks was not to reveal what was rotten in Hillary's campaign, it was a process to manipulate and discredit the US election. Yet people are too busy accusing each other about the details to see that they're still playing their part in the process, exactly as planned. Those behind the hacks don't care that their activities have come to light, indeed that just helps the intended aim. Some people don't believe any of it? Even better! Dischord and distrust rules. Poke the puppets with a stick and watch them turn on each other!
Hillary has been a power-hungry puppet, who put her personal ambitions above her party's. Trump has been a useful idiot, too full of himself to appreciate his own very real limitations. Someone, somewhere, is laughing themselves to sleep each night at the pair of them. The joke's on you, America, and as long as you focus on the wrong things, it keeps getting funnier.
Scene: "civilised" country passport control. A journalist sits before a disembowelled suitcase where his camera has been found. Two "civilised" officials examine it.
Official 1: Boss, we have a Nikon camera here with encryption switched on.
Official 2: Hang on.
(He reaches for box file marked "Nikon".)
Official 2: You'll find the details of the backdoor we made them install in there.
Official 1: Thanks boss. Encryption, heh heh! Who needs cracking?
Actually, it needn't be a friend of any sort. It just has to be a valid email address, with someone at the other end foolish enough to click on a link.
But this really is a new low. I wonder if the randsomware reveals what's actually occured to the second tier victim?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
