Posts by bombastic bob 10283 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2015
"Microsoft I believe have looked at their customers and recognized that the percentage that refuse to jump when ordered and have a clue are a liability."
Many of whom will purchase (or set up) a non-windows computer for their children, parents, grandparents, etc. just so THEY aren't being called upon for supporting that abortion-OS known as "Windows 10".
And then, when novice users begin to realize, they too will abandon Win-10-nic.
"if only the idiots at Microsoft gave Windows 10 a GUI suited for productivity use."
They're all a bunch of CHILDREN who feel instead of think, and it's THEIR turn now, and they have bought into the idea that MIcro-shaft must drag the world with them over the cilff. Because THEY know better. I think it's become a religious cult or something. Wouldn't surprise me, since Ballmer is a socialist, and Nadella might actually be a COMMUNIST. I suspected Micro-shaft was acting like an oppressive gummint back during the "insider" program, and it kept getting worse, etc.. They forgot that we are "customers". Instead, we're "the masses" or even "minions" to them.
So yeah, the "4 inch" crowd [see everything through a 4 inch phone screen] doesn't understand desktop computing. Those millennial CHILDREN couldn't write a proper GUI desktop if they were given the source code for one, and were then told to simply implement it (you know, like XP's or 7's GUI that we all thought was pretty good or at least acceptable).
I still can't figure out why THIS person *FELT* that 2D FLATSO TIFKAM interfaces were so much BETTER than 7's or XP's... especially when it was the 3D Skeomorphic interface of Windows 3.0 that MADE! MICROSOFT! SO! SUCCESSFUL! IN! THE! FIRST! PLACE!!!
"Quite a lot of security issues are fixed in the upstream Linux kernel without a word about their security impact."
Some examples dipped in truth sauce, if you don't mind. I don't believe you.
[I did read about ONE kernel vulnerability in El Reg within the last week or so. It certainly did not get fixed "without a word". In fact, there were a LOT of words, including some security notices.]
I'd say this goes into the "just because you say so does not make it true" bin. I've seen plenty of THOSE that poke at Linux, attempting to say it's "as bad as windows" and "look at all of the security problems" and other FUD. Sounds like something Ballmer would say [no, wait, he DID say!].
In any case, it has been my observation that most of the security problems in Linux have very little to do with the kernel, and a LOT to do with some of the applications running on it. Some of those applications/libaries may even have windows versions (especially media players and browsers).
And the problems with the "[cr]app store" applications with built-in security nightmares is the app store's fault, not Linux [even though Android OS _is_ a type of Linux].
"Words like "by", "on", "in", "with" are often given the wrong contextual meaning."
yeah, English and its plethora of prepositions and their subtleties. Some lingos only have one or just a few. 'En' in spanish, is one example. How do you translate English to Spanish so that context fixes it? "It's in the box" = "Está en la caja." "no, it's not ON the box, it's IN the box" "No, no está en la caja. Está EN la caja." Yeah that'll help.
On a related note, I can think of 10 ways to say "I" in Japanese, each with its own implications, some of which might insult people if you do it wrong, or might make you sound disingenuous, or immature, or arrogant [and I'm just learning the lingo for fun, and am not an expert]. Similarly a number of ways to say 'you', some of which might carry different implications depending on the dialect people use, or who says it ['anata' vs 'omae' for example]. How do you program a translator for this? You really can't, unless the translator can read minds...
"they benefit the massive reduction of transport costs for goods and services"
Sorry, one of the biggest costs involved in trucking is FUEL, and then maintenance [brakes, tires, etc.]. Wages are a part, but it's much smaller than you might think.
Independent truckers make a profit, sure, but it's a fair bet that half of their revenue is burned up by the engine in order to deliver the stuff. If a trucker earns the equivalent of $50/hour in profit (probably not likely, just using this number for example), his fuel burn rate could be nearly the same [particularly on long haul]. 5mpg might be consdered very very good mileage for an 18 wheeler. At $3/gallon and 60mph [both a bit unrealistic in places like California], that's at least $36 in fuel per hour for "straight and flat". Factor in some hills, stops [and waiting] at weigh stations, plus the truck's maintenance costs [which are the same for robo-drivers] and it's not so much of a savings any more...
And since fuel is much more expensive on your end of the pond, my numbers for "middle america" are a 'best case' scenario. It's a fair bet that fuel costs in EU and UK are considerably higher than this.
THEN, consider that the truck drivers are likely to load and unload their OWN trucks. Having extra people on the dock to handle the loading/unloading of robo-truck might not be so economical. There'd be several employees there, working in bursts, and coking/joking/smoking the rest of the time.
Overall, I think robo-truck would be "a wash".
One more thing - for REALLY long hauls, freight trains are typically used. They stack them with pre-loaded truck trailers. So the trucks bring the trailers to the rail yards, or within the state the rail yards serve. The trains then take things everywhere else. In some cases, the 'trailer' is a shipping container with wheels and a hitch bolted on. So they're already being really efficient, if you think about it.
And the driver's wage isn't all that much, when you look at everything.
[I think I'd rather have a skilled driver anyway especially for traveling in mountainous areas]
"If a car driving in another lane parallel to me veers into my lane due to inattention or lack of perception, I can make various signals"
middle finger? "Read my binary - 00100 00100" [in a convertible, this is most effective]
Seriously, I would think the robo car wouldn't have this problem, because its on-board sensors would detect you. But that brings up a possibility of "how do we know they're working properly". A self-test would need to be part of the system in order to make sure they continue to work properly.
At some point, maybe YOUR car will auto-detect the 'veering' and tell the other car about it, or take evasive action on its own [announcing to surrounding cars what it's about to do]. Just a thought.
Still good to think of these problems. Hopefully the engineers working on robo-cars already have.
yes, libertarians just want as few laws as possible, certainly NOT the "cluster-FEEL" that we often get, nor the "anarchy" that libertarians are claimed to want.
I'm a libertarian, and I recognize the need for laws. You just don't want to go too far with them, that's all.
Example: recent shooting in Nevada. The bodies hadn't even assumed ambient temperature before Demo-rat politicians were out SCREAMING about "gun control" [like THAT would have helped]. It's typical of the left (and sometimes the extreme right) to "leave NO tragedy UNEXPLOITED politically".
So after ONE major accident involving a robot driver, "gummint MUST regulate". Well, be very careful applying the regulations, because gummint generally does NOT know excrement from shoe polish about ANY kind of tech [I'm sure most people agree with this] and the LAST thing we need is GUMMINT sticking their gummy little digits into the business of engineers and scientists, catering at random to whatever political WHIM is popular these days, and with the #1 motive of "getting elected" being behind EVERY law and regulation they excrete.
That of course doesn't mean that gummint should NOT regulate. I think reasonable limits, such as certification tests, minimal safety standards, and the *kinds* of hoops that a new drug has to go through to be approved, would make sense. So maybe there's the equivalent of 'FDA' approving self-driving cars, to make sure that human lives are protected, both inside AND outside of the vehicle. THAT kind of thing.
That, and the "I already mentioned them" liability laws, as an additional incentive to get it RIGHT. Similar laws already exist for U.S. cars (to prevent exploding gas tanks, for one). So yeah, just a bit more of "that", specifically related to robo-cars, and we're good to go.
"light touch" when done properly will MAXIMIZE the industry's opportunity. People will be more confident in the new tech, and gummint wouldn't be in the way [or requiring corrupt kick-backs under the table].
"Government regulations by themselves won't be sufficient."
re: "evil lawyers"
That's the other side of what gummint can actually do RIGHT in a 'soft touch' kind of way, to make sure the liability laws are adequate. And then the blood-sucking lawyers will take care of the rest. Sadly, that's how it has to work.
"I foresee a marked increase in the sort of accidents typified by the recent Tesla fatality."
I suppose that accident WOULD have been avoided by a human driver? And how many accidents are avoided by ROBOT drivers by comparison?
You have to tell both sides of THAT story. Or, it would be another case for: "Oh my FEELING GOD, there was ONE DAMN ACCIDENT with ROBOT CARS, harumph harumph, let's REGULATE the CRAP out of them now!"
Gummint "gums things up". There is a point at which SOME intervention is good, like setting minimum standards, liability laws, and [in the case of interstate commerce] allowing auto-drive cars to cross state lines in the USA. Beyond the "light touch", you do NOT want big GUMMINT sticking its fingers into everything and mandating things that are ridiculous or politically motivated. I'd hate to see a requirement to have an electric car to get a self-driving car, for example, with all of the implications as to WHY some gummints might try to FORCE that up our as down our throats...
it's still open source, last I checked, so an enterprising software dev COULD make any necessary patches/changes to appropriate files and then compile for the older OSs. That assumes "they" have the gall to actually mark the manifest as "7 or later" or use an unsupported API function that's only available in 7 or later... [and at some point, 10 or later, if they keep THIS up]
(but I think if you mark the manifest '7 or later' it may still run on XP, but maybe not Vista - I'd have to check)
But if they do it right, they're just covering their asses with respect to "having to support" XP or Vista. And the EXE will still run.
/me points out: Vista is MUCH better than 10. PCs that came with Vista on them STILL RUN. People who have such Vista PCs CANNOT BUY 7 FOR THEM [easily]. And MANY PEOPLE do NOT WANT Win-10-nic. So they stick with what they have.
"They enjoy shafting people and piss their pants laughing as suckers buy into the next creation."
all snark aside I doubt it's THAT bad. I'd just blame the usual incompetence and "bubble world" thinking.
They're trying to out-Apple Apple. It ain't working.
The *BIGGEST* problem with Surface is the 2D FLATSO Win-10-nic. If they'd just go back to a Windows-7 or Windows-XP UI, I think people would *LOVE* it!!!
But you know, they've invested SO much in the 2D FLATSO "the metro" UWP fiasco, that changing direction NOW would cause too many people (including HER) to admit they were WRONG in the process, such that it just ain't gonna happen. Dammit.
Abandoning Surface might still happen though.
Micro-shaft: Acting like Communists since the early noughties i.e. "You will take it or we shove it in anyway, because one size fits all, everyone is the same, you can't be different" and "We know best what's best for you, the proletariat" [yeah nothing like top-down dictating instead of 'customer knows best']
"I/O of a mainframe is superior"
that's the rumor, yeah. I have to wonder if that's stll the case for PCIe SSDs, a multi-GBit network backbone for talking between the blades, and other "fast things" built into a rack o' blades, running VM-based cloudy tasks.
Or is the mainframe's data throughput better than a storage device directly plugged into a PCIe slot? [or whatever new tech has come down the pike and I haven't heard of it yet - it has been a while since I scoped out bleeding-edge hardware]
"Mainframes ARE cloud computing!"
in theory, yeah. That's if you consider a bunch of rack mounts running cloudy VM tasks with load balancing and replication and other related "cloudy management" things, then the entire 'rack' becomes "a mainframe".
Sort of.
/me wonders about special VMs to run COBOL programs
"Ok - I liked COBOL"
There's an 'Open COBOL' (now gnu cobol) that probably works just fine with old stuff...
https://sourceforge.net/p/open-cobol/
(apparently translates COBOL code into 'C' first, which is actually a really good feature if you think about it)
I think COBOL was the first lingo to truly support named structure elements, and structures within structures. OK you _could_ do it with FORTRAN 'equivalence' statements, but still... that was kludgy
So: why code for a MAINFRAME when you can code for a rack-mount or cloudy VM instead ??
I bet those old mainframes can't even handle the load compared to a modern x86 or ARM-based architecture.
seriously!
it was mentioned, sort of, in the article, that screwing around with intarweb reliability harms economic growth.
Let's say my company wants to leverage cheap labor in Africa. OK we maybe try to get something in Nigeria, where they're apparenly so bored and poor they can't do anything that's not a 419 scam [or so it would seem]. So we want to build a factory there and hire locals and make wiring harnesses or something that requires a lot of manual labor and China is too expensive, now.
However, because various warlords get into pissing contests more often than not, and "someone" decides to disrupt intarweb, including YOUR VPN NETWORK that you're using to pass company secrets between the factory and your main office, because they can't spy on it. Or they accuse people of using 'social media' without their required filtering via your network. Or whatever. Maybe you just didn't pay them enough to go away.
In any case, if this is "matter of course" in Africa, no WONDER investors are hesitant to build factories over there. They're quire literally KILLING their own opportunity, and KEEPING their own people poor.
Or was THAT the plan from the beginning?
"There is no reason you can't incorporate in Delaware and continue to live in Mumbai, or Vilnius, or Ulan Bataar. "
Or just contract out to a VERY efficient hard-working "get it done" "worth every penny and then some" independent "work at home" contractor, like me. [there are a LOT of us, actually]
Not only would they save money in a) equipment, b) office space, c) insurance, d) taxes [assuming it's a corp-corp type of contract], they'll ALSO save the hassle of having to choke up various "benefits" including the OBAKA-CARE "tax".
It's a total win, and no WHINING about it, either.
And they could even sub-contract to FOREIGN companies, where slave-wages are more common, if they're so cheap. But I suggest: you get what you pay for. Just sayin'.
Silly snowflakes. Your tricks are for BABIES. So transparent, they make glass look opaque.
although I'm more comfy with the idea of updating a Linux kernel to "bleeding edge", I'm definitely not happy with what developers do with the software that RUNS on it...
'bleeding edge' is OVERRATED.
I mean, think about it:
1. Firefox. or FireFEELS. V57, and before that, Australis. YUCK
2. Gnome 3. 'Nuff said about THAT. At least there's Mate
3. Systemd in the userland. No thank you. Devuan exists now.
4. 2D FLATSO themes, by default. W.T.F.F.???
What I'd like is something that is STABLE, something I don't have to re-re-relearn just to do what I'm accustomed to doing [call it 'work' and I don't earn money for re-re-relearning a platform I need for it, so it's WASTING my PRECIOUS TIME to CHANGE THE RULES like that].
L.T.S. releases sound VERY good to me. A nice stable NON-moving target, something I can keep running indefinitely, something I can get WORK done with, and NOT have to rebuild, upgrade, test, SCREAM ABOUT, and THROW AT THE WALL because something screwed it up during the "upgrade".
"Response for many is to quickly assess situation to determine if severity of situation is serious enough to balance the charge of inappropriate contact."
yeah, I figure that "huggy" stuff is the parents' job. If I do their job FOR them, they won't have anything to do, now will they? So a) check for obvious injuries, b) notify someone in authority, and c) find the kid's parents. And if the kid is in immediate danger [of being run over by a bus] then move the kid to a safer location. That concludes my civic responsibility for taking care of someone else's kid. And DELEGATE the rest [that would make me a better manager!]
(except when snowflake interviewers are looking for touchy-feely types that usually nauseate me if I'm forced to work with them...)
FIrst of all, "Marxist Economist" isn't very "scholarly" unless your tongue is firmly embedded in your cheek.
Second, THAT! EXPLAINS! A! LOT!!!
No _WONDER_ they've taken on an evil,oppressive, "You will take this or we'll shove it up your a down your gullet" aproach to marketing things _LIKE_ Win-10-nic.
It totally makes sense now. A socialist (Ballmer) handed off the leadership of the company to a *FEELING* COMMUNIST! ['feel' being the 'F' word In My Bombastic Opinion]
And, like Mrs. Clinton, he writes a book. I'm sure the "fan club" will ADORE it. The rest of us will go "meh"
"military veteran that is over 50"
Yeah, I _WISH_ that gave me an advantage. More likely to get AGE DISCRIMINATION because I believe I'm worth more [or am more willing to bargain for higher wages] for all of that experience, tend to speak up to those "young whippersnappers" who _FEEL_ (not think) that their ideas are "so great" [but obviously aren't, to an old guy], etc. etc..
[it's never fair]
"America is going down an ugly slippery spiral of 'acceptable racism' in the name of diversity."
has been happening since the concept of racial (and sex) hiring quotas were introduced as "a way" of ensuring that discrimination doesn't happen (back in the 60's) - which of course means discrimination DOES happen in the name of anti-discrimination.
Stupid l[aw]yers. Stupid politicians. Stupid gummint. Stupid liberals.
Must be some "quota hire" that thunk THAT one up
"The future belongs to EMDrive"
well, if it would work, you would have thought that 17+ years later, someone like Musk would've built one, right?
I see it as being similar to 'cold fusion': MAYBE you get "something" but it's so impractical in actual practice that it's not gonna go anywhere.
I suspect that things *like* the EM drive actually get thrust due to photons and the reaction drive effect you'd get by shining a flashlight. Get a big enough light, and you'll get measurable thrust. Similarly, that conical 'exhaust port' is probably getting the benefit of microwave photons bouncing off of it [effectively, though it would be a form of scattering] and imparting some of their energy to it in the process. One end of the cone has a different resonant frequency than the other end, so if you're converting higher frequency microwaves into lower frequency microwaves, maybe SOME of that energy is becoming kinetic energy... or more likely, HEAT... and the rest would be 'exhausted' out of the back as microwaves (or infrared photons caused by all of the heating).
Still, NOT enough to be practical. Maybe mildly amusing, for a scientist, but that's about it.
"Is the world in a place were individual dudes (or individual dude's companies) can achieve stuff that entire nations cant?"
I'd like to think so. Because when GUMMINTS get involved, it becomes political. Then the cost inflates for various political reasons (because, gummint). And then the funding gets cut because, political reasons.
Look at NASA in the 60's, and then the 70's, for a clear example, with respect to moon landings and what they were spending taxpayer money on. LBJ's socialist programs were eating too much of the budget, so NASA took the hits (in favor of re-distributing money via social programs to likely demo-rat voters). So much for Buck Rogers in the latter half of the 20th century. We have been confined to Earth orbit ever since.
I would prefer that all SOCIALIST spending be dropped in favor of rockets to Mars. At least THAT way you get something for the money being spent [a rocket, to Mars, and the technological breakthroughs in the private sector that go with it]. I doubt that ANY gummint would EVAR see it THAT way, again, not since the 1960's...
/me watched every manned rocket launch and related broadcast that I could, in the 60's and 70's, ever since I was old enough to be aware of what was going on - that'd be since the Gemini program, actually... and *DAMN* those socialists for DE-FUNDING NASA.
"none of this 3 hours early nonsense"
for the very wealthy, who can afford chartered flights, the check-in process would be considerably faster. first, you're going to use a 'branch' air terminal. In San Diego, for example, that would be the commuter terminal, which only services smaller planes that do short commercial flights (like from San Diego to L.A., or San Diego to Monterey or some other 'whistle stop' airport), as well as CHARTERED planes. And a small private airport (which just has private and chartered planes) would be even easier to do check-in at.
So when you consider the TSA-caused slowdowns of normal "coach" flyers, the really really rich ALREADY have their "separate and UNequal" system locked-in. For them, it's still "fun to fly".
but since rockets to mars (or suborbital earth city to city) would ONLY have the super-rich affording the cost of a ticket, then I suppose whatever check-in process THEY go through could be a 'new experience' of sorts.
I suspect it only affects DNS resolvers running on ISP servers, and individual users won't be affected at all, even when you're running an ancient version of windows...
In order to state the query as 'authoritative' you'll need that key stuff mentioned in RFC 8145 is for the conversation between the 'resolver' (running on the client) and the server, using DNSSEC. I don't believe that DNSSEC is actually _REQUIRED_ though, and older servers should still work.
I would expect older clients NOT using DNSSEC to work just fine, also.
If you're trying to resolve the queries yourself, and NOT use an ISP server for DNS, then maybe this will affect you. Or not.
If you're using a forwarding server or cacheing server from your ISP (or 8.8.8.8 for google's DNS server) then I'd expect it to work just fine and not break anything.
but worst case you could temporarily turn off DNSSEC [though I doubt it would be necessary]
The question here is MOST likely what the ISP cacheing servers will be doing, and whether those would all need to be updated. And yeah, it could cause a BIG problem if they can't resolve DNS queries any more...
could Samantha be considered a RAPE victim? Will her software undergo PTSD? SJW's, what's YOUR call on this? [I say just erase her memory, like it NEVER happened, a few minor repairs, and "good to go"]
yeah I know THIS post will get the hate it deserves. heh.
troll icon, for obvious reasons.
"at this level our CO2 emissions would drop to sustainable levels"
but our METHANE levels would increase, as men continue to eat greasy foods like they're still 15, etc.. "Pull my finger - Muahahahaha!" No need to 'hold it in' or blame the dog, when your 'woman' is a robot. Farts become fun again.
"/Kidding ;-)"
heh, nice recovery. did your 'significant other' see you posting that? "Nyeth, Dear..." [the sound of the ultra-nagged kitty-whipped milquetoast hen-pecked hubby]
at least, if a robot were to start nagging, you could be like Harcourt Fenton Mudd, and just say "Shut up, Stella..." (yeah obligatory Star Trek reference - they recently played an Original Star Trek marathon on BBC America channel, worthy of mention)
"Not humanity is doomed, women are."
heh - robosexuality - for politically correct reasons, they MUST accept it.
I wonder how long the SJW's would defend robosexuals...?
This can easily descend into a 2D vs 3DPD rant, like on certain image boards
and don't forget THIS web site...
"That's getting off light."
yes.
When I was in the military, I got a clue when it comes to classified information, why something that doesn't seem like it should be 'Secret' is classified 'Secret'.
Think of it like this (my interpretation):
'for official use only' - disclosure might embarrass the government or create diplomatic problems
'confidential' - disclosure might give advantage to a potential enemy in war, or compromise our advantage
'secret' - disclosure might get spies or informants killed, or greatly compromise intelligence gathering
'top secret' - disclosure might cause war or otherwise get a lot of people killed
and it goes up in importance and consequence from there, I'm sure.
The point is, if you're trusted with classified information, it's NOT your job to determine whether or not you should or can disclose it. You probably do not have the "need to know" of just how important (or unimportant) that information is, nor the implications of actually disclosing it. And the penalties for disclosure _SHOULD_ be very very high, because if they're not, you won't be able to trust ANYONE.
there's a YUGE stink regarding all of the rebellious "leaking" going on in the security branches of the U.S. gummint. Trump had to apologize to your PM over it a few months back...
I think she'll be used as an example. A mid-20's decent looking female, who probably had a really good career in front of her at the NSA, and might've married well and had a family... and who NOW won't get out of the Iron Bar Hotel until she's close to FORTY. Say buh-bye to your "youth", there, girly, because you just FLUSHED IT DOWN THE CRAPPER!
[when she gets out she'll probably write a book, but that's no guarantee of income]
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
