Posts by bombastic bob 10515 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2015
"Now that I use an OS that Excel doesn't support"
I'd guess Libre Office 'Calc' will do what you need, yeah.
On a semi-related note, has anyone ELSE observed that the Windows 2.x screenshots with Excel 2.0 in the article look WAY TOO MUCH like 2D FLATSO Win-10-nic ? Just wanted to point that out. Yes, I am _COMPELLED_ to do so.
Of course, "that" look+feel was based on Windows 1.0, even 2D'er and FLATSO-er than 2.x [but at least the colors weren't all 'shades of grey'].
"And the crew are unable to repair it? Am I missing something?"
that's why I'm thinking it's some kind of damage that they don't want disclosed. ran over a whale, fouled it up with a classified sonar device that's towed behind the ship on a cable, or they got hit with one too many RPGs, yotta yotta. (or a design flaw for that matter).
I could tell a 30+ year old submarine sea story about a fouled screw and how we realized it was like that, and why it happened, but I probably shouldn't...
"Captain calls over to the harbourmaster... 'Oi, mate! Can I have a tug?'"
The U.S. Navy has what they call "Sea-going Tugs" (I expect the Royal Navy has them, too).
When I was on a sub (back in the 80's), we tied up outboard of a sea-going tug in the Hong Kong harbor. Not only did the tug have better anchors than a sub does, they could also run their fresh-water evaporators in the harbor [regulations kept us from running ours on the sub] for showers and other non-essential water usage. We had to run the reactor for electricity, though, and so it kept a good portion of the crew on the sub for half the time we were there (engine room crew was basically 'split in half' so that we could spend at least SOME time in town). I still had a good amount of time to tour around town and visit the 'China Fleet Club' though... so it worked out pretty well.
"Cavitation damage, I wonder..."
it might also be related to sound signatures. A ship with a definite 'lope" in its propeller sound signature can easily be tracked from a very very long distance away [by a sub with passive sonar, for example].
Such a problem could also be caused by damage, like part of a blade snapping off, and/or significant fouling by 'something' from fishing nets to floating debris, or one too many RPGs fired at it from small boats filled with ISIS and/or terrorist types...
"Oops, the towed sonar device's cable got stuck in the screw, fouled it up, and caused some damage" or "we ran over a whale and it damaged one of the screws".
that kind of thing
"There's a continual trend for fewer, more expensive defence assets."
they're probably looking at a number of conflicting issues, political as well as economic, as to why to do it 'that way'. But they're "not wrong" in the approach they've taken [just not IDEAL I would guess].
I prefer the "more of the less expensive variety" approach, though. It tends to suffer losses with a greater chance of rapid recovery, like the way things were in WW2, ya know?
Back in WW2, US and UK produced a great deal of fighter aircraft (like P-51s with Merlin engines in them) that were significantly LESS advanced that ME-262s. But the ME-262 was expensive and hard to build.
End result: overwhelming numbers with "good" but not "great" tech WON THE WAR over the "superior" tech. Obligatory reference to Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority".
Now fast forward to the 21st century, and potential for "see I told you so" by Arthur C. Clarke...
1. There _IS_ a need to develop new tech. You need at least SOME 'bleeding edge' war machines.
2. There are ALWAYS problems when you're on the bleeding edge of tech, and fixing a ship usually involves more than just calling out for a repair tech (think drydock).
3. There should ALSO be a fallback of "traditional tech" you CAN rely on. So rather than sinking the entire budget into a brand new class of ships, you should be upgrading the old ones, too.
4. There's an implied need to balance the financial, personnel, and political implications of "all of that"
Back in the 80's I was on a 688-class sub. We had a "fix" for the main engines, that was later "fixed better". We had a 'workaround' for a problem with the shaft and bearings that was eventually "fixed properly". We changed propellers 3 times in the short time I was on the sub (~4 years). Each of those 'fixes' required a month or two in a shipyard drydock. Those are expensive and limited resources. but it DOES reflect the effect of 'bleeding edge' tech, since the 688 class submarine had only been around for a few years at that point.
Since then, there have been a LOT of 688 class submarines, which ultimately led to 2 newer classes [the most recent of which seems to be designee for lower cost and high reliability].
Anyway, I expect the Royal Navy has this *kind* of thing in mind and, unfortunately, it might mean some down time for their ships while problems are ironed out. So, for now, some 20+ year old U.S. frigate will probably remain 'on station' while it's getting fixed...
/me notes that LESS spending on Austerity, and MORE spending on military, means that you buy something that's made in the UK, meaning jobs instead of 'need for austerity', and you ultimately get "a ship" instead of "more hands out begging for more money". You get what you pay for, ya know?
"sometime it is that the feature was ill-conceived, and the vulnerability is inherent to the feature."
give me ONE example of that, please. Otherwise, it's "paranoia bait" 'what-if'ing
Keep in mind - Linus personally reviews things. I doubt that an ill-conceived feature exists in the kernel. If it DOES then Linus would swear at HIMSELF.
"What if " [snip paranoia bait]
There are a zillion "what if" possible questions out there. We can _easily_ "what if" ourselves into a completely unproductive state. But that wouldn't be practical, would it?
I doubt that a bug would be "intrinsic to the interface" and EVEN if it _IS_ you RE-DESIGN THE INTERFACE to fix it (not slap on a 'patch' with whitelists and process killing as a "fix").
I have to wonder how those white lists work, anyway. Could a trojan horse application simply write a process with "the right credentials" and _BYPASS_ that anyway?
see, ya gotta think like an evil hacker to see the potential workarounds in order to recognize that a horsecrap "solution" (like white lists and process killing) is simply PURE HORSECRAP??
FIX THE ORIGINAL BUG instead, I say. So did Linus, apparently.
"Fuck developers and users, that's my debit card details!!"
Thanks, Micro-shaft and/or "gnome 3" and/or "systemd" developer. "Your kind" of attitude is already so prevalent in the software world these days, that the rest of us don't even bother to comment on how NAUSEATED we are any more... [except on occasions like THIS one]
(the backlash is long overdue)
icon, because facepalm.
post-edit: I somehow doubt your debit card details would be easily revealed by a particular kernel bug. that's just FUD.
"It's interesting to see he apparently felt he should explain the bloody obvious"
He did so for the "special" developers that submitted the CRAP PATCH in the first place. I think he's using a different tactic this time, to help eliminate the 'threat' in the future. I don't think it will work but I'm slightly entertained by it all. Anyway. GO Linus! Keep up the good work, k-thx!
Of course "being nice" and explaining things doesn't change the fact that putting "whitelists" into the kernel and killing processes is a *BAD* *IDEA* to begin with, which SHOULD HAVE BEEN "the bloody obvious" ( but apparently wasn't ).
Icon, because, topic related.
"it would be really good if they could get someone impartial to investigate and report on the total cost of ownership for a comparison to other councils."
You're asking for GUMMINTS to work like individuals and/or private industry would, and make actual sense.
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry...
"are there compatibility issues between Open Office and Libre Office for an example"
I have seen formatting changes when printing a ".doc" or ".xls" file with open/libre office. And of course, the spreadsheet formulae in open/libre office use ';' instead of ',' (though last I checked it seems to read the Excel format just fine, and converts it). The thing is, if you save a document in a Micro-shaft format, the way the Micro-shaft program presents it is just different.
So I'd say "get used to Open/Libre Office" to everyone from the top down, and then everyone standardizes on ONE office suite, and the problem is solved.
But, you know how politics is. Nobody *EVER* has the testicular fortitude to make an ACTUAL POLICY DECISION like that. Well, nobody that's a CAREER POLITICIAN, anyway...
"it only makes sense for them to go back to Windows"
NO. I see contracting opportunities for German software developers as a MUCH better opportunity. How about "re-write us something equivalent for Linux and get it done in 2 years" as a goal, then pay THEM the money (most likely LESS of it), and then SELL IT and help German software makers do worldwide business!!!
But they're not gonna do that. They're gonna feed the "windows pig" instead. It makes me wonder who gave whom sexual favors and payola to make this happen.
"49M for 35000 users means a very expensive version of Windows 10... 1400 Euros per head..."
Shhhh... you're not supposed to "do the math" - that's for THE EXPERTS. *You*, sir, are not an enlightened "expert" and so you can't POSSIBLY calculate this correctly. harumph, harumph, harumph...
</sarcasm>
"the software they required simply does not exist on Linux"
Herein lies the CENTER ISSUE.
Question: "What software"
1. can the "windows only" applications be re-written for *LESS* *MONEY* than completely revamping everyone with Win-10-nic boxen?
2. just how CRITICAL is "that particular application" anyway? In other words, can the same job be done with SOMETHING ELSE?
The silence on these two details probably answers my questions...
It's a fair bet that some enterprising IT guy could sit down and write a cloudy data entry or data analysis application that runs in a web browser to do whatever "that thing" does, and NOT require "Win-10-nic for everybody", for less money, in *LESS* *TIME*, and then THEY would "own it" and could even sell it to other agencies...
But then, the sexual favors and behind-the-back payola "won't happen" so they'll never do THAT, right?
"If you look at the (for example) Brexit vote, the Russians would definitely gain from a weaker, divided EU. But also, so would the Americans"
Not THIS American. Because, like Ronald Reagan, _I_ believe that "a rising tide lifts all boats". I also believe that Brexit is good for the UK, because Brussels isn't doing you any favors these days...
So if _I_ am right, your economy will do well post-Brexit, just like ours is doing a LOT better at the moment. I certainly want the UK economy to do better. I don't think ANYONE in the USA [who isn't an evil son-of-a-bitch] would want the UK economy to do WORSE...
"it can also be my made up political story, my meme that pushes all the right buttons for a certain group and will get shared"
Sounds like a fun project, for intarweb trolls, to do independently. This might get fun. POPCORN! GET YOUR POPCORN!
I wonder if 'media matters' and other such "non-profit" organizations are already doing that... (of COURSE they are! But Zuck won't point THAT out now will he?)
"We're all sociopaths and narcissists."
you sure do have a horrible outlook on your fellow man. I, for one, don't accept that.
There are two classifications of people that I've observed having this kind of opinion about other humans. Both of these involve some kind of CONTROL over "everyone else" "for their own good". One is religious. The other is political. Filling in the names of these classifications of people is an easy exercise for anyone who pays attention...
(in short, I'm saying that anyone who thinks this is probably a CLOSET ELITIST at the very least)
I like to think that everyone else pretty much just wants their own life (and that of their family) to be reasonably decent, and will therefore treat others with the same kind of respect that they want to receive, to its logical conclusion. And, with the exception of a VERY few 'bad examples" (for which we have prisons and a legal system), I think I'm right.
post-edit: Yes, I'm talking about "socialists" and "the religious right". Might as well just say it. both see everyone ELSE as 'basically evil' and probably include themselves just to make it sound like they're not elitists (when they are). And BOTH seek to CONTROL OTHERS, "for their own good".
"Oh, I would like to see JSamba - 128GB or RAM to share a couple of files... and good luck at managing the message headers."
yeah, THAT would "fix it"!
Considering that Java has no 'unsigned' data type, even... *nausea* (/me reaches for "pink liquid")
it could ONLY be worse if it were coded in PYTHON! (well, maybe COULD be worse than that, but I don't see it)
"no clue how to do memory management and garbage collection."
REAL programmers do not NEED to do "garbage collection". They understand that for every 'malloc' or 'new', there must be a 'free' or 'delete'. And buffer sizes must be CHECKED. etc.
"garbage collection" is for those weenies who insist on using duck-typed languages. Or Java. *nausea*
"they should not just toss this idea away because a few Dev will get their Fefees hurt"
well, just DAMN the collateral damage, then, right? It's "just gonna happen" so we can "hand wave" it and not give a crap, right?
Let's NOT go there, ok?
Apple's development model SUCKS for "the little guy", and there are WAY too many "we must approve it" checkpoints, from what I've seen.
Let's NOT go there for 'droid, ok?
when I wanted to submit a patch for an open source project (in this case, the Arduino IDE) I basically had to clone the repo, make my change, and then submit a pull request. Makes sense to do it that way, though, right? It _is_ the way the github docs tell you to do it, after all.
But, is THAT the level of "copying" they refer to?
It's a fair bet that cloning the repo [for this very purpose] only constructed pointers to particular revisions, and so it wouldn't reallly take up a lot of storage space on github's server.
STILL, I'd think it would count as a "copy"...
yeah, there IS a lot of "copying" going on, in this case. [I suppose I oughta delete my copy, now that I think of it, and the patch has been incorporated into the project]
post-post note - someone else mentioned 'forking', possibly as I was writing this...
"Torvalds - yup not a nice man"
being "nice" is HIGHLY overrated. It usually gets you abuse from underlings, and disrespect from bosses.
Being an ASSHOLE at the right times, and in the right context. usually works best. Smile MOST of the time, but it's always *HAMMER* *TIME* when the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan.
I think Linus masters this pretty well. Programmers who can't handle the "you F'd up" hammer need to get out of the business. Otherwise, where's the motivation to create a quality operating system without a bunch of UNNECESSARY CRAP in it?
If Linus' motivation were narcissistic and/or exploitative, I'd be angry at him. But it's not. So he gets my BIG thumbs up!
icon, for Linus being "not a nice man".
Forget just a statue, how about a 'classic Greece' SHRINE?
/me envisions lots of Corinthian columns and marble
Seriously, though, Linus is right. If you try and put every "but if" you can into the kernel, you'll end up with MS WINDOWS [or worse] and who in the hell wants THAT???
I have a better idea: if you want "that behavior", write a kernel module to do it. Otherwise, leave everyone ELSE's Linux alone!!!
Cisco apparently wrote their own "hardened" Linux for their own stuff. Maybe Google needs to take a page out of THEIR handbook, and NOT sit there whining and trying to make EVERYBODY ELSE on the planet "do it THEIR way".
no icon this time, as I can't think of one that's even remotely relevant to this...
I just hand-edit everything with pluma, use a private github repo to transfer to the production site by doing ssh into the web server and 'git pull' and do whatever fixin' needs to be done on the web end afterwards. Actual development happens on a development box Works fine, and seems pretty secure.
who _needs_ something like WordPress?
in the USA the car license fees (and taxes) are handled by departments of motor vehicles. In Cali-Fornicate-You, they issue a sticker that you put on your license plate. Some states issue new license plates every year (or used to). Your car gets cited if the sticker is observed to be out of date. And each year's sticker is a different color so it's easy to see from a distance.
The sticker system works pretty well, actually. I'm not sure what a paper disk looked like, but if it was placed in the car windshield it would be a similar kind of system.
now, if Cali-Fornicate-You would just STOP IT with the tax increases I'd be a lot happier...
no, you got it wrong.
more like this:
while (science && education)
{
science--;
actual_education--;
education_overhead++;
austerity++;
buying_votes++;
socialism++;
union_buyoffs++;
gummint_inefficiency++;
bureaucracy++;
}
fixed. you're welcome. (now why aren't indents working? oh well...)
I think Atlas may be hydraulic [which is easier to manage from a technical standpoint]. It's just the sounds it makes remind me of a hydraulic system, though some of the larger motors might still be of the electric-drive variety.
pneumatics is still a good idea as well (for size and efficiency), but the hiss-hiss of the valves operating would be irritating. Hydraulic systems are a lot quieter.
Early on, Google was funding them, but Google apparently saw a video from nearly 2 years ago and were NOT pleased:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/17/google-could-be-selling-boston-dynamics-because-even-google-thinks-these-robots-are-terrifying/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-and-boston-dynamics-are-parting-ways-2016-5
apparently, after a year, they were sold to SoftBank:
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/06/google-sells-boston-dynamics-to-softbank.html
Japan doesn't seem to have problems with developing robots. There's a long history of humanoid (and sometimes creepy humanoid) robots and Boston Dynamics seems to be a perfect extension of that.
I don't know why Google didn't keep them. I thought the "poor defenseless robot" video from a couple of years ago (when that guy kept teasing it like a bully might do, moving the box, shoving it on its face, etc.) was pretty good. Apparently Google didn't like it. "We at Google do NOT have a sense of humor" etc. might have been part of THAT conversation... (but I laughed, as I watched 3 stooges a lot when I was a kid, and I _do_ have a sense of humor!).
I think it was less about robots taking over, and more about NOT having a sense of humor about tripping, kicking, or pushing over a robot that's running a program telling it to pick up a box, or watching a robot almost fall on its "shiny metal ass" while walking over rough terrain in snow. [the fact that the bot recovered in an almost human-like way is pretty cool, though!].
[I'm also very glad to see these guys are still around.]
I would include a 4 cyl diesel engine anyway, to charge batteries while driving [or while sitting at a truck stop].
Just worth pointing out, the worst problem to solve in trucking is ADEQUATE AIR CONDITIONING.
As a truck driver, you're sitting on top of a high horsepower engine, constantly. Even good insulation isn't enough to block that heat on a hot day. You're gonna ROAST without proper air conditioning. And air conditioning uses power. It gets worse on hills during the summer, like the 'Grapevine' north of L.A., where drivers basically have to go slow in the 'special truck lane' and suffer through the heat. And so on. And the downlhill speed is limited to 15mph as I recall... (for safety). And uphill speed might be slower, depending. So not a lot of wind to help, yeah.
I suppose if you plan your trip properly, you use energy giong up hill, and try to restore it going down with dynamic braking. But what if the batteries are already fully charged? You'll need a way to dissipate the extra power, maybe a resistor bank with a cooling system [like trains have].
I have a strong, sneaky suspicion that this electric truck was designed by people who've never driven one on a long haul. So maybe my uncle (who owns a trucking business, though he's close to retiring now) could consult for them. Or any OTHER experienced driver that understands electricity and mechanical engineering, for that matter.
I think they'll need that. Otherwise, it's like the proverbial "Superiority" (by Arthur C. Clarke) problem.
New, Shiny not always "superior", yeah.
this article is making me think of this web site at the moment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20171013064115/http://www.nomarriage.com/
sadly, looks like the site is offline now. thanks to the web archive, not completely.
Anyway... a couple of snips helps to prevent "the obvious problem", in a society that assumes that men are PREDATORS, and women are pure and innocent (regardless of whatever they CLAIM).
<rant>
Those who have EVER been through a nasty divorce involving child custody, ESPECIALLY in Cali-FORNICATE-you, will understand what I mean. It's better to get SNIPPED and DENY the planet the benefit of your gene pool, than to have to ENDURE the ANAL RAPING in a courtroom, for those *kinds* of women don't have penises, but they have ATTORNEYS, and those attorneys will do "by proxy" (in the courtroom) what THEY could NEVER do to you...
</rant>
yes, mental picture intentional. "BOHICA" --> Bend Over Here It Comes Again
"then Usenet died off"
no, it hasn't. neither has IRC. A lot of linux and programming-related and hacking-related newsgroups still exist, and get regular posts even.
it's just that TOO MANY people swallowed the FACE-BITCH/TW*TTER coolaid. But on USENET there are no ads [other than SPEW/SPAM]. There are no moderators [a moderated group is easily circumvented anyway]. There are no more "control: cancel" responses that are honored, so no post-post editing either. (but then again, I wouldn't need editing so much on El Reg if the fonts were of a reasonable size in the edit window, aka "the same size as the text I view after posting" - which it isn't).
And anyone who posts HTML to USENET is *APPROPRIATELY* *FLAMED*
It's truly the Wild West on USENET. As the intarwebs SHOULD be.
"If your experience is anything like mine, what it will come up with will be mostly worthless nonsense."
ACK - nobody wants to take on a gargantuan project like that as a fork, and deal with the support nightmare that individuals would have to deal with.
palemoon doesn't build (easily) on FreeBSD, and waterfox is just... ancient.
Mozilla has chased their tail for YEARS. First, they wasted time on a "the METRO" version of FF, then abandoned it. AND, they went off on that "Australis" crap, to be "chrome like". FAIL. I think they even entertained an Android version, but I've never seen an Android running anything else EXCEPT Chrome [it seems to be too heavily tied into other aspects of the Android system].
So now we get THIS. MOZILLA is acting JUST! LIKE! MICRO-SHAFT!!!
on a related note...
I'm considering doing something like 'midori' except *WITHOUT* the 2D FLATSO [I don't recall the OLDER versions being that "chrome like" but the newer ones certainly are...]. Then add support for older plugins, and VOILA! It could become its own entity, FOR THE REST OF US.
If _I_ do it, it'll probably build on Linux and BSD and to hell with native Win32 [use Cygwin or MinGW to build it and gtk2 to render it. HAH!]
And at that point all security fixes would be tied to webkit, which would minimize my involvement.
[anyone ELSE want to "give it a shot" ??? I'm kinda busy these days]
"The change in the add-on API was announced well over a year ago. It actually makes things easier for developers to provide add-ons for all browsers."
* N * * O * ! ! ! ! ! <-- read that as a VERY loud "NO"
It *BREAKS* things that *USED* *TO* *BE* *POSSIBLE* !!!
The legacy plugins can *NOT* "just be rewritten". They CAN! NOT! BE! DONE! ANY! MORE!!!
Get it?
"is your server configured to use HTTP/2?"
should be nearly all of them by now. Although... I _have_ written http servers by hand before, for things like microcontroller config UI pages and for device control via a web interface [it just made more sense that way]. Support for HTTP/2 requests is pretty much mandatory, ya know?
I think what you meant to say was PERSISTENT CONNECTIONS.
But I agree with at least SOME of your javascript comments. What you did NOT mention was "having 15 different places to load script files from". Micro-shaft does THAT with THEIR pages.
And NOT having javascript at ALL - THAT would be best!
So here's what _I_ suggest web devs do, to improve speed:
a) include ONLY those style elements you actually NEED, in a "<style>" section within the '<head>' section of the web page.
b) embed whatever _MINIMAL_ script you might need on the page itself.
c) use '<table>' for formatting things. Yeah, it's old school, but works pretty well
most of the slowness is because of SLOPPY web "programmers" using WAY too much script, or including (a) 3rd party ginormous BLOATWARE style sheet(s). Seen it, in the middle of cleaning that kind of crap up, in fact.
No amount of "30 percent faster" (or fat bandwidth pipes) will _EVAR_ fix _THAT_ !!!
"We now have square edges instead of round edges for the tabs. "
with all of the *OTHER* *RELEVANT* UI gripes (like 'Australis' in general [and the 2D FLATSO-NESS], lack of menu the first time it's run, and "the hamburger" being HARD to get rid of without plugins [unless they actually fixed it], and BREAKING the legacy plugins), they "fixed" the tab shape?
I actually liked the rounder tab corners, but whatever. It's not a 'deal breaker' for me.
WHAT! IS! A! DEAL! BREAKER! IS! AUSTRALIS!!! [it's what I use legacy plugins to GET RID OF, as much as possible anyway]
So they "majored in the minors" again, walked over dollars to pick up pennies, and claimed they'd cleaned up the mess. Yeah, right...
Now Firefox, WHY are you losing share? How about because of THE UI THAT YOU CANNOT PUT BACK TO THE WAY EVERYONE (EXCEPT YOU AND YOUR SYCOPHANTIC FANBOIS) WANT IT TO BE!!! (you know, 'classic' appearance)
GET a CLUE, please!
and if it DOES come, say goodbye to your economy. "the masses" will end up with mediocrity, and "the ruling elite" will always have "theirs". Separate the haves and have-nots by guaranteeing UBI and you'll keep all of those upstarts (who otherwise WOULD work harder to get ahead) "in their place".
But why is that?
Because, in order to PAY for it, you'll have to tax incomes at the worst possible 'progressive' rate. but "the rich" are ALREADY rich. You're heavily taxing people trying to BECOME rich. So you're heavily taxing those who have the POTENTIAL of being rich, but you're taking that opportunity away from them with the high marginal tax rates. And so they say "why the HELL should _I_ slave myself and get NOTHING in return?" So they stop working so hard, as it's POINTLESS. And so on.
And "the rich" get RICHER, because they ALWAYS do, and the poor get POORER, because, UBI.
See?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
