* Posts by jgard

54 posts • joined 7 Oct 2018


Russian gang behind SolarWinds hack returns with phishing attack disguised as mail from US aid agency


Re: This is what happened, when The Register pushed propaganda the last time

Hey you're always free to post somewhere else dude. That's what freedom of speech and journalism are all about. Why do you still read and interact with a propagandist website, when there are so many free and journalistically independent outlets for you to use?

How Windows NTFS finally made it into Linux


Re: I can only warn

Right..... erm... OK? And that's your best rebuttal? Wahhh! Microsoft bad, NTFS crap... wahhh! Sarcasm. Wahhh. Just doesn't cut it fella.

I never even said you were the only one, or that you are not aware of world events (even though that's totally irrelevant). I said you don't know what you are talking about regarding NTFS, and that your understanding of the scientific method is, well, unscientific.

Your original comment was ill informed, unsubstantiated and poorly reasoned, i.e. pointless. Your reply was even worse, and your argument remains baseless. Either give us some substance or go home.


Re: I can only warn

I agree with everything you say, but do you really think that 16 exabyte volume sizes are going to present a practical problem in the foreseeable future? That's one big-ass volume!


Re: I can only warn

You once lost 500 MB of files after a filesystem check. Therefore NTFS is a shit show. Quod erat demonstrandum! Except, the only thing you've demonstrated is sloppy thinking and confirmation bias. Either that, or you're just making it up.

NTFS is a rock solid and reliable file system, proven in the real world for over 30 years. I've been working with it for 20 odd of those and have never seen a problem similar to the one you describe. I have seen such problems with other file systems, though unlike you, I don't take that as an indication that they are shit shows. It would be presumptive and down right silly to decide so on such isolated and limited evidence.

I get that people like to bash Microsoft, I do it regularly myself, but at least base your claims on facts and sensible thinking. You don't offer any relevant facts here and it's clear you have no idea about NTFS. The issue you described was almost certainly down to something else, the two likeliest candidates being a hardware / driver / firmware issue or user error. Of course, you know you will get likes on here by slagging off anything to to with MS, and that must be tempting. But for most of us readers the baseless, repetitive MS bashing, is boring, childish and often betrays a profound ignorance on the subject in question. Sadly, that is the case here: you are simply wrong about NTFS.

I'm not claiming NTFS it's better than X, Y or Z file systems. I'm not saying MS and Windows are great, or ext4 is crap or anything else. I am just saying it is extremely reliable and robust and is proven to be so. To claim anything else is just not true.

Facebook rendered spineless by buggy audit code that missed catastrophic network config error


Re: Out of band management?

That's simply untrue, it's actually far easier to secure out-of-band than normal in-band access. In band access has to be provided on a wider basis for many use cases and many users. The attack-surface and number of potential vulnerabilities are many times greater than OOB done properly.

For a company the size of Facebook, implementing a secure OOB network is trivial. Point to point ethernet over fibre, mutually authenticated point to point VPN (authenticated by cert and another factor), physically secured and dedicated terminal in remote Facebook office. Designated engineers using multifactor auth and protected, physically secured creds, plus a code only the engineer knows. Monitored 24/7.

I suppose you could dig up the fibre, splice to your identical hacking hardware, use the cert you previously nicked from the physically secured and network isolated machine in the FB office. Then get your coconspirator (who has managed to break into the live datacentre) to go through the mutual auth process with you. Then log in with the physically protected credentials and MFA tokens you have stolen from the Facebook offices, along with the access code that only the designated engineer(s) knows. You would of course have to do this before the 24/7 sec ops team saw the link go down.

Your other option would be to go to Facebook HQ, bash all the guards on the head with a truncheon and make your way through their labyrinthine super-secure building, get to the physically secured terminal, read the mind of the engineer(s) with access codes, get the MFA tokens from the other safe. Again, this would have to be done before sec ops found out that HQ is under attack by hackers armed with truncheons, bashing guards on the noggin and running round the offices like barbarians in Rome.


Re: Out of band management?

If their out-of-band network was taken out by their DNS servers going down, it's emphatically NOT an out-of-band network.

Can we talk about Kevin McCarthy promising revenge if Big Tech aids probe into January insurrection?


Well, looking at your posts you don't do it very well mate. You're no Bob Monkhouse, that's for sure.

Apple's M1 MacBook screens are stunning – stunningly fragile and defective, that is, lawsuits allege


Re: Can normal people sue?

Well, you're not listening to it, but here's an idea, don't read it either. Though I don't mean to be disrespecful, as you are an exceptional individual, having never bought anything substandard.

It's amazing that even when buying a product or service of which you have no knowledge whatsoever, you always make perfect purchasing decisions. If only I had you around when choosing cancer treatment, or deciding what type of investment to make given the charitable trust, power of attorney, charge on the property and the soon to be ex wife's tax liability.

You should look after your cross domain omniscience and multi dimensional purchasing expertise. There aren't many people about like you. We are not worthy.

Hacking the computer with wirewraps and soldering irons: Just fix the issues as they come up, right?


Re: I'd hire him...

Let me guess. You would have swapped out the hardware yourself, then written the OS stood on your head while playing the trumpet?


Mightily Impressive

I have to take my hat off to you Matt. To be able to do that at such a young age is quite remarkable. I could barely tie my shoelaces at that age. It's fair to sat that many devs with 20yrs experience wouldn't even know where to start on that task. The fact that you actually got it working is incredible. Well done sir!

See that last line in the access list? Yeah, that means you don't have an access list


.... Which means you're a careless, incompetent admin and you operate the internet's least interesting web server. We'll done sir!

Audacity fork maintainer quits after alleged harassment by 4chan losers who took issue with 'Tenacity' name


Hmmmm..... The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.


That comparison makes about as much sense as Rudy Giuliani saying he doesn't use hair dye. You should look up the fallacy of false equivalence.

If you want to see beautiful women in beautiful places, with perfect lives, doing yoga and eating salad, you got to instagram.

If you wanna hang with resentful, angry, immature, spiteful, sad cases - who project their self-loathing and sexual frustration on others - you hang out on 4chan.

US offers Julian Assange time in Australian prison instead of American supermax if he loses London extradition fight


My personal take is that as a consequence of his reckless and selfish actions - and a cowardly ongoing effort to avoid justice and any form of accountability - he certainly has been through a lot. But so what? He's a camera hogging coward, a professional leech who will take, take, take - and give absolutely nothing back.

There is not a shred of evidence that he has ever acted out of altruism or moral conviction. And his personal quest for fame and notoriety has undoubtedly led to many decent people meeting a terrifying and gruesome end.

On the other hand, there is copious evidence that he has colluded with or worked for the Russian government. His shenanigans probably had considerable impact on the 2016 election, resulting in that orange turd gaining office.

To those that claim he has done good work bringing the US to account, I have to say that I find your views obtuse at best. I see no evidence of his work (i.e. a mix of self aggrandisement, abusing hospitality, evading the law and self-pity) effecting positive change for decent humanitarian governments or their citizens. But it is clear as day that the egregious, thuggish regime in Moscow has benefitted enormously.

He knew about the potential legal and penal implications before he started, but he did it anyway. The old adage 'Don't do the crime if you can't do the time' is particularly appropriate here. The US ain't perfect by any means, their justice system is horrendous, but it's a fuck load more civilised than Russia. Moscow's regime is one of the most corrupt, bullying and dangerous on the planet.Yes, he faces prison in the US, and rightly so. However, it's a lot more civilised than some stranger rubbing Uncle Vladimir's Night Time Nerve Tonic all over your chops.

I can't stand the wining, money leeching, windbag. He has cost this country a fortune while evading the law and abusing any good will or hospitality that has been afforded to him. Consequences are for others, not him; he's a knob head with a Jesus complex and serious, self-cultivated delusions of his own grandeur.

Of course, this is just my opinion based on the evidence I have seen so far. I'd be interested to see any evidence of Assange acting altruistically, or of his actions generating a net positive outcome. I might even change my mind. Well, only a little bit. Anyway, I'm all ears.

After 15 years and $500m, the US Navy decides it doesn't need shipboard railguns after all


Re: A cunning plan

I think it's much more likely that they will continue to develop this out of sight, coming back in a couple of years with a mach 10 super gun!

Perl changes dev's permaban for 'unacceptable' behaviour to a year-long lockout after community response


Re: I'm

Absolutely.... I got as far as "cis white man... privilege.. marginalized group". Why, why, why does everything have to come back to identity politics and the resulting hierarchy of oppression we are always being bombarded with? In the real world, 95% of decent, caring, empathic adults will roll their eyes when that sort of thing is said. It's not because they are bigots, they're not, it's because they do not need to be force-fed with prescriptive, identitarian politics and associated Orwellian phrases. They (I, we) understand the world and its dynamics, there's no need for the newspeak.

Then he grumbles about the thing he was told that he didn't like but won't quote. He thinks HE is the arbiter of reasonableness, so automatically assumes that role. Because HE found it unacceptable it must be deemed to BE unacceptable. It doesn't matter if 90% of people think it's fine or hilarious, or if the speaker means well, what matters is that HE as a listener thinks it IS offensive.

The problem with discourse these days is that so many people think that they can justify their claim by using politics of identity or oppression, and/or sincerely felt offense. And because of the hallowed sanctity of those concepts, they trump everything and cannot reasonably be countered or questioned. Anyone who does might handily be labeled a bigot / Trump supporter / alt-right something or other.

When everything is about identity, oppression, and offense, NOTHING is. They are huge factors in many social issues but lose all significance when used to justify absolutely everything.

I like to think of myself as caring, empathic, considerate, in fact, I am. I fucking despise Trump, BoJo Brexit, bigots, racists, homophobes. But I'm also an adult, and along with many other decent adults, I'm sick of identity-obsessed political rhetoric and people thinking their offense matters more than absolutely anything else. I realize other people think differently and they don't want my politics shoved down their throat. I don't want theirs down mine, but even if I am offended by a statement of theirs, that is MY reaction, it says nothing of the truth, intention, kindness, or otherwise of it. I'm a grown-up and I can cope with people I don't like, with politics or ideas I find wrong.

Kindness, compassion, a sense of humor, personal resilience, acceptance of differences. Giving people the benefit of doubt. These are what we need more of.

The act of feeling offense does not have celestial significance, it does not speak divine truth about what was said. So let's stop treating it as if it does. And also, can't we just stop taking ourselves so fucking seriously? Please?

Words to strike fear into admins' hearts: One in five workers consider themselves 'digital experts' these days


Sarcasm aside, As someone employed as an 'IT expert' with 20 odd years experience, I would be screwed without a search engine. All the other 'experts' I know would too!

GCHQ boss warns China can rewrite 'the global operating system' in its own authoritarian image


Re: Global operating system

I think it may have been intended as a metaphor.

What you are suggesting is RidiculOS.


Re: Who are they addressing?

You mean like Churchill and the military top brass were trying in the 1930s? ;)


Re: Who are they addressing?

Hey, I know It's difficult to accept you're nothing special, but once you do, you'll realise NSA/GCHQ are not interested in you. And believe me they're even less interested in your anus. Fundamentally, your fundament is perfectly safe - from GCHQ at least - unless you are a real bad geezer. They really aren’t bothered about you; this is about keeping us - by that I mean ostensibly free democracies - free.

The weapons have changed. In the past it was guns, tanks, and nukes, if Khrushchev wanted to put pressure on the west, he would blockade Berlin, or ship nukes to Cuba. The west could respond in kind with naval blockades or airlifts. And although tanks and bombs are still important, the main threats have moved online.

They now involve disruption of power grids, interference with military systems, disabling telecoms and internet backbones etc. Much more nefarious are their less obvious aims of subverting individual freedom, freedom of markets, democracy, free expression, political sovereignty etc. China is a totalitarian and authoritarian regime; there is no political or religious freedom, no freedom of expression - a wrong word gets you a bullet in the head. Like all authoritarian states, it is run by power hungry despots who lack any humanity and will do anything to keep and extend their power. Look at Hong Kong for Christ’s sake, China invaded and consumed it against all external objections and outrage, and against the brave local people who fought it. BTW - they didn't fight and risk all for a laugh, they did it because they were terrified for their families’ lives and freedoms.

China invaded because they could, but that geographical / strategic leverage (i.e. being next door and having a huge military) is less and less important. In the future, invasion and control of another state will be done electronically. But it won't be possible overnight, it will be through injecting malware on an enormous scale, firmware disguised in hardware to call home or disrupt power stations; by them slowly taking control of standards bodies; insertion of a backdoor here and there, using their increasing economic power and huge scale to replace hardware, software and standards. Given the free reign to expand, they would have capability to impose absolute control on anything they liked, unilaterally and on a global scale: including disruption of stock markets, whole currencies and economies, outlawing privacy, censoring speech, controlling our lives and eliminating our freedoms.

I'm afraid your rant is just plain silly. I realise people might have complaints against living in US or UK society, problems with politics or foreign policy. But if you think for one moment they are even remotely as immoral, unethical, expansionist and globally dangerous as China and/or Russia you're deluded. How many US/UK citizens do you see emigrating to China and gaining Chinese nationality while surrendering a UK/US passport?

GCHQ are absolutely spot on – our freedom and security really do depend on tackling this head on, and with every ally we can find. I’m sure they would also like to reassure citizens that their anus and associated anatomy is perfectly safe.

University duo thought it would be cool to sneak bad code into Linux as an experiment. Of course, it absolutely backfired


Re: Place your bets...

Wasted time? OK, but at most it's a few hours of people's time. Irrespective of the research itself, the exposure that this has had, and the increased awareness it has generated is out of all proportion - in a positive sense - to any time wasted. The commenter in the original story was right, this is an emotional, rather childish reaction to a real issue that should be addressed. Yes we would all be annoyed and feel a bit of a tool in this situation. But that is not a professional or effective way to deal with this. As usual at the reg, the fact that it's regarding the Linux kernel, tribal loyalty means a fair proportion of readers immediately decided it's a terrible thing to do.

This is the world's most used software, anything that highlights or even suggests the potential for security issues is a good thing. This is especially true here given the very trivial negative consequences arising from the study. If people can't accept that, I would question whether tribal feelings aren't perhaps clouding their objectivity.


Re: Place your bets...

I'm sorry, but you're trying to establish an entirely false equivalence there. That analogy is plain silly.

OMG! New free speech social network won’t allow members to take the Lord’s name in vain


Re: A free speech social media network that doesn't allow free speech!

A couple of scientific sounding words will throw 'em off: 'anterior anus' and 'posterior pipe' are worth a go.

FBI deletes web shells from hundreds of compromised Microsoft Exchange servers before alerting admins


Re: Dangerous precedent.

Didn't we get rid of the dangerous one in January?


What were the Alternatives?

This makes me feel a little uneasy about the FBI overstepping the mark, but I think some people here are misinterpreting the story. They didn't patch any server, they just removed the malware. And if the FBI were going to install their crap, or steal info, would they go to court, be granted permission by a judge, do the deed, then tell the owners and the world's press afterwards? I think not.

This was almost certainly a national security issue, on which the FBI had to act quickly. If a team of Russian spies was rummaging around a Lockheed Martin office stealing missile designs, the feds would get round there and stop them. If they didn't, they'd be castigated for their inaction. In principle, this is no different - they have an obligation to stop a crime in action, especially when it involves national security.

It does leave me feeling uneasy, but I don't think there was much of a choice. The alternative is to let the bad guys steal top secret info and use it against US and / or its allies.


Re: Out with the old, in with the new

Yeah, because if the FBI wanted to install backdoors, they would go to court to get the permission, install them, tell the companies concerned, then release the story to the press.

Texan's alleged Amazon bombing effort fizzles: Militia man wanted to take out 'about 70 per cent of the internet'


Brilliant and modest, you are an example to us all. But please tell, what on earth is a computer numeric system? Wouldn't 'computer' suffice? I don't know about you, but when I add uneccessary technical words to a phrase It's because I'm trying to look smarter than I am.

Your description of "Von Neumann's computer numeric systems emulation universality principle", looks fascinating but I've never seen it published anywhere. However, it sounds a bit like the concept of a Universal Turing Machine, which was invented by someone else. What you claim is just wrong, 100% wrong. Von Neumann was brilliant and contributed hugely to early computer science, but he didn't do what you claim. Turing completeness, the foundations of computability theory, undecidability etc was the work of Turing with a bit of help from Alonzo Church. Kurt Godel also contributed massively with his work on incompletenes. You could almost say Turing put the icing on the cake that Godel had already started baking.

Turing, the person who actually did that stuff was a gentle genius and a war hero. However, due to him being gay, the UK govt and police treated him egregiously after the war. I try to stand up for him whenever I can. He saved countless lives, shortened WW2 & very nearly created the whole theoretical basis for computing, and he deserves the credit for that. Also Turing was English, Church was American, Von Neumann was American-Hungarian, and Godel was Austrian. Scuppers your Canadian vibe a little bit, don't you think?

You have been extremely busy posting on here today - a busy beaver, even :), ahem... My advice is to take it steady for the rest of the day. Oh, and check the coffee machine, I have a bad feeling the five pints of decaf you swilled this morning were not actually decaf.

British gambling giant Betfred told to pay stiffed winner £1.7m jackpot after claiming 'software problem'


Re: This isn't over

'Issues' is putting it mildly, the man spent a whole 0.00147% of his winnings being nice to himself and his family. Winnings which he fully expected to be paid out on immediately. Reckless. Where is the humanity?

I'm with you - that £2.5k should have gone straight into a fixed term ISA, and a diverse portfolio of high yield bonds.

The good news is that he can now afford treatment for his issues. Let's hope he seeks it.

In other news, I'm having a party next week for issue-free people only. Must have perfect credit score, collar length hair and no issues. Would love to see you there.No booze allowed, just tepid tap water. £2 on the door, bring a Flanders and get in for free.

Troubling news for JSON tinkerers? Windows Terminal unveils The Settings


Re: I sense a sea change at MS. And I'm not sure it is all swells from here on....

OK, Microsoft are the root of all evil, their products are rubbish and only good for mouse monkeys. Yeah yeah.... And if you get the ASCII value of each board member's initials, divide by the number of pages in revelations, multiply by no. of animals on Noahs Ark, back into ASCII, reverse the order, the string reads "George Soros 666, invent COVID, fund Bill re vaccine micro chip trackers, destroy software industry with our Bilderburgh friends. Build global sun shield, charge for daylight like Mr Burns. Give MS Research green light for operation SPIDER PIG - make it with that Hugo Chavez DNA we've got in the fridge as its starting to go mouldy". They have a lot of directors, obviously.

When will people stop spinning this tired old nonsense about Microsoft? It's boring, out of touch and nearly always wrong. I honestly believe it's the older guys who like a bit of nostalgia for when they were up to date with tech before all this new fangled stuff came along. It makes them feel sage-like. It also comes with built in safeguards - when it doesnt come true, no one will remember, but in the unlikely event it does, you can point to you post 8 years ago. It being such a vague claim makes it even more foolproof!

If you really want to see this type of thing - being forced to pay extortionate prices while they crush your testicles, Oracle might be a good place to start.

Back to the original point. Microsoft took in $43,000,000,000 last quarter, their sales keep rising sharply, and will continue to do so. This open strategy is delivering beyond expectations. As the previous commenter said Microsoft havent done anything of which you speak for a very long time (but feel free to inform otherwise). Satya Nadella shows absolutely no inclination to do as you claim, he's also outrageously succesful and very smart. So why would he risk another strategy, that he probably wouldnt support ethically anyway, and potentially fuck up his legacy?

Decade-old bug in Linux world's sudo can be abused by any logged-in user to gain root privileges


God, the content of these comments is so bloody predictable and depressing. A Linux / Unix utility hides a serious vulnerability for years and so many people here are blaming the language. A language that is behind many of the most critical and efficicient systems ever written. To those of us who were, decades ago, trained in C, these comments aren't only biased, they're incredibly uninformed

The first things you learn in learn in C are bounds checking and using malloc properly. These are basics, but people cannot bear to hear that the Linux / Unix community has missed this bug. Instead they try and fit Microsft whataboutery into the argument, then blame the language.

If this bug was in Windows, would commentards be blaming the language? Of course not! They would blame Microsoft and their supposedly 'crappy' engineers (even though 99 % of readers don't have the smarts and experience to work there). I mean can you imagine a bug in C code that runs Window? Would C be blamed? Not a chance.

Ken Thompson, father of Unix and grep, among others, initially coded both of them in assembly. Do you think Ken (a computing god) would blame the language? Absolutely not.

I'm a huge Linux fan, I use it everywhere, but I have to be honest when an issue is revealed, and I don't understand why many people aren't more objective and rational in this debate. This isnt a failure of language it's due to process, tooling and individual factors.

To blame C for this is not sensible, but to use it to discredit Windows as well is positively absurd. As the great Richard Feynman once said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.".

GitLab removes its 'starter' tier: Users must either pay 5x more or lose features


Re: GitLab is full of hack leaders and managers

Oh, and if genuine, that email about skirt wearing is utterly fucking appaling! That's reason enough to stop paying them, the creepy, paternalistic twats. Is that actually legal? Surely - unless you live in Mauritania, or the 1840s - that would contavene equalities legislation?

What's next, mandatory high heels and lipstick? Thongs on Friday? Birth control banned on company health insurance?


Re: GitLab is full of hack leaders and managers

.... 'and he'll jump any direction they tell him'. Surely you meant to say hurdle?

It's been a day or so and nope, we still can't wrap our head around why GitHub would fire someone for saying Nazis were storming the US Capitol


Re: Communist = Nazist

There are people commenting here to say Communism isn't as bad as Nazism. To those people, all I can say is that you are wrong, whether you believe this on grounds of morality, philosophy, ideology or anything else. I don't mean to be condescending, but you are ignorant of the truth.

The regimes were morally and ethically equivalent, and both were repugnant. They had no regard for humanity or decency or truth, they had one aim: glorification of the state and the people above all else. The regimes imposed untold cruelty, barbarity, horror, despair, fear, uncertainty, indifference to suffering and unending terror on their populations, and those they were able to subjugate.

Many people have a vague knowledge of the Gulag, of arbitrary imprisonment, punishment, shootings or torture in the Lubyanka, but few understand their true scope and horror. Stalin kept a whole population in abject fear for three decades, he kept the whole country in a state of unending anxiety by jailing and / or shooting anyone, often on a whim. If the first red scare wasn't bad enough, in the second during 1937 he had over 600,000 innocent people murdered after being snatched from the families during the night. At the end of WW2 he effectively sanctioned the rape of millions of German, Austrian, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Hungarian, Latvian, Chek, Albanian, Romanian and Polish women, justifying it with:"what is so wrong with a man who wants a little fun with a woman after fighting the war?" As a result, the suicide rates of young women in those areas went through the roof.

He murdered - starved to death - several millions of Ukranian children and adults for reasons of ideology, expediency and racism. During the purges he would sign off death warrants for tens of thousand at a time - not for an legal or other reason, but because he didn't enough people from each region had yet been shot. He killed all his wife's family, imprisoned jewish doctors who tried to help him.

A Russian soldier in WW2 had no more rights or autonomy (likely less) than a Jew under the Nazis. The unthinking brutality with which he and his generals viewed the soldiers was beyond terrible. The reason they eventually toppled the Nazis was simple - they had more soldiers and viewed the life of each with indifference and contempt. Around the time of Stalingrad Stalin issued order number 227 - it compelled soldiers to move forward when told or they wouldn be summarily shot, their whole families imprisoned in the Gulag and children in orphanages. Of the Russian soldiers who started the war when Germany invaded in 1941, only 3% survived trhe war.

You should read about the Katyn massacre - 22,000 Polish officers killed on Stalin's orders in case ONE OR TWO might be spies. He even built a concrete shed with a sloped floor and sluice gate for hosing down the fluids. His executioner wore a butchers cap, rubber boots and apron while he shot several hundred innocent, terrified and decent men every night.

The horror of the Gulag is indescribable in a few sentences. Truly as bad as the Nazi camps, but they lasted 30 years not just 3 or 4 and tens of millions suffered privations there that you or I cannot imagine. I'll give one tale from tens of millions:

A family of Kulaks (peasants) from Ukraine were sent to a work camp in 1930s just for their identity. They were packed on trains for 30 days, standing room only like cattle, it was freezing cold, they were fed once every few days, water every few days (one mug) - their child fell ill, needed water, got sicker and sicker. Eventually he died for no reason other than the cruelty and indifference of the guards to 'enemies of the people' like them. When the train next stopped the boy's body was ripped from the screaming and distraught parents' arms in darkness and thrown or buried somewhere close to the train. The doors closed and the train pulled away - all they knew is that his body was left somewhere near lake Baikal in Siberia. This happened time and time again, it's inhumanity and suffering on a titanic and terrible scale.

During and after the war, Stalin invaded and controlled tens of millions in east europe, deporting and killing millions on a whim. He condemed those populations to decades of fear, control, terror etc.

I agree that the Nazis were the worst regime in human history. What they did was unspeakably cruel and horrific. But the Soviets were the worst regime ever too, they were just as heinous and cruel ( you could choose Mao, Pol Pot and others - who were just as bad as Stalin). When you got so extreme and horrific the minor differences between ideologies and cruelties don't really matter, they are all evil. These regimes were identical in two fundamental areas: they were totalitarian ideologies and they refused to recognise the reality and value of human dignity. That should be a lesson for our future.

Seriously, if you don't think the communist regimes of the 20th century were as bad as the fascict regimes, you should educate yourself. To start with, try: Gulag (by Anne Applebaum) and The Whisperers (by Orlando Figes). I say this not to be a smart arse, but because I believe it is vital that people understand all the horrors of the 1900's, not just the Nazis.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says Trump ban means the service has failed


Re: Too late

I'd say it's more than several years late. This polarisation and division started well before social media, though that has been a very effective conduit for its propagation. It started with traditional press and broadcasters. Once they started to become private enterprises - when the state controlled media ecosystems around the world were no longer controlled by the political systems in their own country, things changed. Money became boss of news, media, press - everything in the way of information on current events was driven by the need to make cash. Clever business men (who often have a right of centre perpective on politics) realised this provided unprecedented opportunities.

They found they could influence hundreds of millions of people across continents by providing consumers with news that is slightly skewed toward their (the business owners) political views. This works particularly well with a right-wing take on the news as it tells the consumer what they want to hear: foreigners stole your job, welfare is too easy etc., It's well known that older people are by far the biggest consumers of news. What do they like to hear even more than the average person? That things aren't as good as they were in the old days!

Soon, the owners learned the best strategy to retain and expand your consumer base was to sell confirmation bias delivered by a 'charismatic' messenger. This worked perfectly for the moghuls, because not only was that the fastest way to make money and expand, it was also allowing them to beam or deliver their take on the news into people's homes. It wa the classic WIN WIN!

Of course, the way to keep expanding is to turn your strategy up a notch. This might be making your position move to the right, or maybe putting the other side down. This easily then morphs into semi-extreme views on some channels / papers and outright demonisation of the left. As a press or media moghul you can't lose, because people love to get angry at others, they love news that confirms their comfortable old-world prejudiuces. Over the years these same people moved from consuming regional news (local radio and TV, regional papers), which is nearly always politically neutral, to devouring partisan, politically driven news and current affairs from multi-national empires.

For a hilarious but incisive takedown of this cynical approach, I highly recommend this clip from 2006. John Stewart is invited on one of these partisan, let's fight and demonise each other type of political shows and proceeds to rip the hosts apart for their cynical tactics. The best bit is that that the accumulation of pond scum and faecal matter known as Tucker Carlson is on the receiving end and is utterly outclassed and embarrassed, he looked like a child in a room full of adults. So good a criticism was it, that Stewarts appearance resulted in the show being cancelled for good. It is brilliant:


People like Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothmere and a hundred other right-wing media moghuls are directly responsible for the vast majority of hate, division and mistrust in western society. These people are egregious, they're motivated by power, money and influence, and give not a toss for society or humanity for that reason. They have wrecked our societies in just a few decades by selling their conservative and increasingly extreme messages to billions of people. And people have hoovered it up, because to be biased toward one's own kind and country is a natural tendency. If enough people are exposed to it for long enough that dramatically changes a society, but not in a positive way.

The world we see now follows directly from this bunch of amoral manipulators and exploiters; they have sold us this divise, nasty, adverserial view of the world and our societies have brainlessly hoovered it up.

Our current political divisions across the western world are not due to social media, although those tools have certainly helped us go even further down the rabbit hole. They are the symptoms that result from the cynical manipulation of societies, by the media, over the last 40 years. Zuckerburg and Dorsey are not responsible for what's going on, at most they have won big from their predeseors and are now just keeping the seats warm while they become rich as kings.

There would be no Trump without the odious Roger Ailes and Fox, there would be no Brexit without Murdoch, Rothmere, Desmond and their hideous rags like the Daily Mail. This is no exageration. Humdreds of millions have suffrerd because of these disaterous political events and both were only made possible by the selfish and divisive manipulation of our societies by these toads. An old posh twat like Viscount Rothmere doesn't want to be in the EU, so he does what he knows best - frightens, builds hate, generates prejudice and divisiont, and sadly it works.

The best illustration of this cynical, selfish and destructive politicising was something that Ruper Murdoch himself once said. He was asked why he hates the EU, his answer was: "When I go to Downing Street they listen and do what I tell them. When I go to Brussels, the EU tells me to fuck off."

I work therefore I ache: Logitech aims to ease WFH pains with Ergo M575 trackball mouse


Not so my friend. You've obviously never heard of 'de Quervain’s tenosynovitis'. I can confirm from personal experience that it hurts like a c**t, and not in a good way! It also required surgery to get rid of it.

Fot those interested, the top google result describes it thus:

"a painful condition that affects the tendons in your wrist. It occurs when the 2 tendons around the base of your thumb become swollen. The swelling causes the sheaths (casings) covering the tendons to become inflamed. This puts pressure on nearby nerves, causing pain and numbness."

'VPs shouldn't go publicly rogue'... XML co-author Tim Bray quits AWS after Amazon fires COVID-19 whistleblowers


Are you by any a chance a minister in the Bojo's cabinet? If not, you should apply. You appear to have all the necessary qualities:

- You don't give a shit about people other than yourself

- You like telling people what to

- You have zero conception of what it is like to be someone else

- You believe people in shitty, menial, low-paid jobs deserve to be there

- You don't understand that some people have zero choice in where they work

- You don't realise that many people have no control over their working environment and conditions

- You think it is their fault if they are forced to expose themselves to danger at work

- You think helping others less fortunate than you is a waste of time

- You believe having a social conscience is stupid

- You don't know what a social conscience is

- You don't realise that many workers are utterly powerless and terrified of losing their god-awful shitty job because their family will starve

You say:

"'I have no idea who these people are, who think going to work is being an 'activist'"......hmmmmm. Where to start? Well firstly 'these people' are nice people. You don't know them because they think you're a dick and avoid you. Around the water cooler: "Bollocks it's that bell end, the one that writes that crazy incel blog. What's his name? Uncle Ben, or something? Anyway let's scarper!"

Secondly, that's just stupid and a false dichotomy. People who care don't go to work and think "what shall I do today then? Work or activate my inner activist?"

And then there's:

"Do your political work at home, keep work for work activities. Seems a simple enough system to increase your chances of being retained as an employee."

Firstly, no. No I won't. You like telling others what to do and this is why I never speak to you in the kitchen when the kettle's boiling. Secondly that wouldn't be the case if you worked for me and many others. You can care about others and have a conscience without being a militant trade unionist or a full blown blue-haired social justice warrior who thinks words 'are' violence.

And the best bit - I think the irony might be lost on you Uncle Ben, but you seem particularly keen on being retained by your employer. So do countless other people, many of whom will starve, lose their home, their healthcare if that happens. Not everyone lives in the first world you know. Again many of these have no voice, or influence, or power, they work in dangerous conditions and have no-one to speak to employers on their behalf. Well apart from people like the hero who is Tim Bray. What a guy Tim! It's so rare that the powerful speak up for and make sacrifices for those less fortunate.

The world would be a hell hole if we were all like Uncle Ben, like the gusset of Donald Trump underpants after a mutton vindaloo and 36 holes in a Florida heatwave. On the other hand, we would be a lot better place with more Tim Brays.

Official: Office 365 Personal, Home axed next month... and replaced by Microsoft 365 cloud subscriptions


Re: Told ya

Of course it is, as is virtually every commodity software product - cloud is an innevitability. Even if you could get the same quality and functionality elsewhere, who would you rather trust your data to? Google? Amazon? Oracle? The alternatives are just as bad or even worse!


Re: inferior office suite compared to the desktop offering

You can argue it's a cheaper and more private experience, but to argue it is better quality or more reliable doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm an open source fan and user and I prefer FOSS for many if not most tasks. However there is nothing that provides the functionality and interoperability of MS Office for productivity tasks. Libre Office? Come on, you know that is not true.

Microsoft's Bill Gates defrag is finally virtually complete: Billionaire quits board to double down on philanthropy


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

Atheist-materialistic beliefs, when strictly held and adhered to, lead to nihilism/amorality (as you have declared yourself, it can't be otherwise). What, like ISIS? Or the Spanish Inquisition? No I didn't, and no 'they certainly do not'. Don't lie, it makes you look amoral - "thou shalt not lie", after all. So remember, no need to fib, you'll embarrass yourself.

"Why should a psychopathic cannibal not have fun with innocent people's insides"?

No reason, they probably will - and there is no objective moral reason to prevent them. Reason and morality is a product of the mind, and the very fact he is a psychopath means it won't bother him. Again why didn't your benevolent, omnipotent, heavenly father stop him? In most situations people who are mentally well will realise that such acts would cause the other person and their family untold harm, their own family grief, and will get them locked up forever. Still some people are ill, or just fucking nasty and will do anything they feel like. Again, God doesn't stop them. Your point was?

Why was Hitler objectively wrong? Because he caused pain and misery on millions who may have been your mother, brother, child, spouse, he was a monster. If you cannot see why causing sentient human beings to despair at life's agonies is sick beyond belief, then you're worse than I though.

Yes we are evolved animals, but unlike eartworms we are unique in our abilities to suffer, and fear, feel heartbreak, horror and despair.

So, I hold a "self-contradictory position namely, God being terrible and immoral". Tell that to the people who have suffered in his name, the thousands killed in the bible on his order, or murdered through his declarions in leviticus. You must have one massive bloody cherry picker, at least big enough to carry Occam's lump hammer with you.

One last question - if God complately dissapeared tomorrow, what would you do? Treat the disabled, needy and poor in a kind, caring and considerate manner, because you're a nice huiman being who respects other's dignity and right to a peacful life.

Or would you just think, fuck 'em! What ever have they done for me - I was only being nice to them because God told me to and threatened me with hellfire and eternal beatings - that scared me senseless to be honest. But now he has dissappeared I couldn't give a fuck and I really can't be arsed to help them. Fucking losers.

Faith is dwindling fast fast mate, you are on the wrong side of history, and by some large bloody margin. I know ithat given the anount of time you've wasted pursuing it, it's hard to let go of that part of your life, but please do get rid. It's utter bull crap.


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

I should be getting on with other things but this is like shooting fish in a barrel. That said I don’t have time to address all your other ‘points’, but here are a few thoughts:

“No, get rid of God entirely, as in North Korea, and see how will the world turn into a blissful wonderland.”

Within America’s famously violent and amoral prison population just 0.2% of inmates are atheists. This compares to about 10% in the general population.

Also, did you read my post? Look at the studies. The most religious 10 countries on earth have more than 5 x the murder rate than the 10 least religious countries. Poverty, child mortality, violence in a country all increase with religiosity.

The HAPPIEST countries in the world are the LEAST RELIGIOUS, and have LOWER CRIME.

Then to North Korea. A perfect counter example is ISIS, they were barbaric beyond belief, and their capacity for cruelty and brutality was epic. The big difference however, is that ISIS was BASED on religion, its raison detre was religion, its curriculum of savagery and cruelty WAS RELIGION. It was done in the name of religion.

The cruelty of North Korea is there because of the desperate attempts of a crooked regime to hold on to power. It is most certainly not there in the name of atheism, it isn’t there to force atheism on the populace. It’s there to force the regime on the populace. It IS similar to a religion in that they want to rid the people of critical faculties so they accept their leader on faith, unquestioningly believing in his omnipotence and omniscience. And to do that they follow the religionists - feed them unsubstantiated propaganda, deny them education, punish for non-compliance.

….On you following the benevolent God you have chosen for yourself. It’s a shame those people tortured in his name in the middle ages, or stoned because of his decrees in Leviticus, or murdered because he ordered a genocide, didn’t get to choose that God too. Those people didn’t get the chance to say “I’m sorry old chap, but the God I believe in is benevolent. So before you peel the skin from my other leg, might we discuss the theological basis for my torture? No? OK, fair enough – peel away”. Trouble is, he is the same God. Nothing has changed, other than your contemporary interpretation based on the modern and secular moral standards of today’s society. You just hide from the nasty stuff because it would make your brain explode from the cognitive dissonance.

….On kids dying – it’s because of the bigger picture is it? What sort of mental gymnastics do you have to perform in your head to come up with that tortured nonsense? Seriously, that is simply absurd. Why it then, that deeply religious people is will do everything they can to save their child? Research shows that deeply religious people suffer from grief and heartache just as much as atheists. Why? If they truly believe it is part of a plan, and they will see them again and live together forever.

You're tortured cogitations on dead and dying children would be funny if the subject wasn't so sad. However, I will give you credit for the complex mental machinations that must have taken place for you to draw those conclusions. Indeed this may be the very first use, in public, of the principle known as Occam's Lump Hammer!

You are flogging a dead horse mate, none of what you are saying either makes sense or is backed by reality. You are sat there in a bubble of comfortable confirmation biases, but unable to even remotely support them through argument or evidence. Make sure you hold on to that lump hammer.


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

I can’t prove they did wrong, no one can, but I can explain why the general consensus is that they were twats of the highest order.

In common with many religious people you appear to prefer ill thought through, broad brush and simplistic solutions to complicated issues; you’re views on morality are the perfect example. I almost feel embarrassed for you, but I can’t leave such retrograde ideas unanswered.

You see, hominids (yes it started before humans you know, more than 6,000 years ago!) didn’t just wake up one day and say to the other half:

“Ere Barry, I’m feeling dead moral today. You know all that fun stuff we do to that tribe over the river? Like murdering their kids, raping the wives and then killing all the rest who couldn’t escape? It’s wrong. Dead Wrong! You are not to do it anymore, OK? It stops NOW. We should collaborate from now on, help them out so they will help us out, help feed their hungry when we’ve had a great harvest and they struggled. Back them up when they get invaded by that scary, funny-looking tribe from far away. You know, treat them like family, and look after them where we can, protect them.”

“Why’s that love?”

“I don’t know Barry, I’m tempted to say that it makes sense from a game-theoretic perspective, but as game theory is yet to be invented, that’s an explanation I will have to leave to future generations. It just seems common sense love; if we look after them, they will look after us, if we protect them like we would our own group and family, they will reciprocate. If we share food and resources, they will do the same with us and we will all prosper. We will be safer, less anxious, happier, healthier, and stronger as a group. You know, over time we will probably learn to accept other people in our larger group as almost an extension of our family. Hurting, being mean and not caring for them will make them feel bad and being nice to them will make them feel good. As we are a social species that has developed a strong theory of mind, we will have insight into their experiences. We will know instinctively that if they feel bad because of us, they will be less likely to help and protect us, and that makes us feel sad and scared. Mind you, we will still be wary of tribes from far away and those that look different, but that will reduce with time – as we become more educated. Some of our less intelligent members may continue to be horrible to outsiders for countless generations to come.”

“Fair enough Margaret, you were always more of a people-hominid than me. That’s why I married you.”

Of course that is certainly more likely than Barry and Margaret waking up one morning and saying: “Blimey, God wants us to be good to others!”

Although the process described by Margaret didn’t come to her overnight, it did happen albeit very slowly, almost unimaginably slowly to us humans who think in terms of one or two lifetimes. But that process this has not occurred in isolation, our views of morality have developed in tandem with culture, philosophy and ethics. Crucially we have also been able to communicate between distant generations using the written word.

In fact, probably the fastest ever rate of change to our ideas around morality has occurred since we had wide access to the written word, i.e. since the late middle ages. Up until that point our morality was based entirely on religion – you will recall that the slaughtering of other tribes e.g. in the crusades was perfectly fine, and actively encouraged. The Divine Right of Kings meant that theology could be used to exterminate whole populations, on a whim if need be. Women were property, there was no such thing as rape. Hanging children for theft? Not a problem. Brutal and barbaric retribution was the very basis of morality.

Then there is all the state sanctioned killing, torture and genocide. You don’t like our version of Christianity? We will crush your skull till your eyes are forced out, stretch you on a rack until your ligaments snap and joints dislocate. Alternatively, you can choose between being burned at the stake or have your skin peeled off while you watch. It was also jolly bad luck being a witch or supporting a heliocentric solar system, both could (and did) get you burned alive, all due to religious morality.

So what happened then? The enlightenment. Brave philosophers shook off their shackles to religion. Moral philosophy started being earnestly discussed and debated for its own sake and for the benefit of humanity. Our agreed moral standards no longer had to pay homage to the ancient rules of murderous and genocidal Gods. The result? We arrived at a consensus allowing human rights, and freedoms to flourish, freeing many from lives of abject misery, servitude and pain. Over time, these changes have led to our species experiencing far less suffering, far more joy and equality.

For your claim of an objective morality based on religion to be taken seriously, you would have to explain the enormous difference in widely accepted views on morality between the middle ages and now. Most (nearly all) people would view those changes as representing vast improvements in our moral code. The recognition and deep respect of the humanity of each individual is probably one of the most profound changes, both in its magnitude and the reduction in suffering it has led to. It’s also apparently one of the fundamental tenets of all Abrahamic religions. However, along with declining influence of religion, our respect for humanity and the dignity of human beings has sky rocketed in recent centuries. Confusing isn’t it?

The central conundrum here is that in developed societies religion has almost no impact on the moral consensus of a society when it comes to freedom, justice, views on violence, killing, human dignity, equality. Each of these markers has improved beyond measure since we started debating philosophy on a secular basis. Why is that?


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

There are no gods. We have arisen out of nothing, we are doomed to oblivion.

Well that's true at least, well done for realising!

What's to prevent The Purge (yes, the movie series) from becoming reality?

Lot's - I have answered that one at some length elsewhere in this thread, but your next one is even easier:

* God with a capital G in this context: the immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent being who created existence, of these attributes only.

The omnipresent, omnipotent benevolent being that threatens to cast people who don't lick his arse into never-ending fire and agony? Who through an accident of birth one might, or might not have heard of? Who groups of humans use as justification for kiling and torturing others, even though he is benevolent and omnipotent? Who's Holy books variously demand and describe indiscriminate genocide of whole groups of people who he doesn't like? Who describes women as chattel and supports the keeping of slaves? The stoning of non-virgins on their wedding night, or of kids who disobey their parents. The cutting off of hands? Or feet? The rape of captives?

The omnipotent fella that allows kids to die of luekemia, or bone cancer, or eye cancer, or typhus, cholera, or umpteen dreadful, hideous maladies because their parents are poor. Who allows people to die at random through murder, accidents, AIDS, starvation, leprosy. He whol allows the first and second world wars, the Einszattsgrupen and the murder of the Jews. The omnipotent and benevolent fella that is comfortable with all that, and if you still don't believe in him will torture you forever.

And before you say that you don't believe in that version of God, your's is nice and peaceful and lovely. Well many, if not most people's God is like that tyrant described above. Your's is massaged with your twentieth century morals and views of equality and pacifism. And to top it all off how do we know your's is right and the God of 15th Century Spain, or ISIS, or the Genocidal God of the Old Testament doesn't apply any more? We take your word for it I suppose? Seems legit.

Epicurus is again pertinent here: Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?'


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

What about the multitude of olfactory genes deactivated in dolphin DNA, but still present in land dwelling mammals? That's nothing to do with dolphins evolving slowly from land mammals? Explained by the fact that as smelling is not possible underwater, genetic drift and other mechanisms caused those genes to slowly become non-expressed? What is the purpose of those genes I wonder? And why is the same pattern of gene deactivation seen in animals all over the world when they have evolved from another species which needed those genes to survive in a different environment? The fact that it is so universally consistent is remarkable don't you think?

Or the tiny leg bones of the whale, disconnected from the rest of the skeleton. Or the general evolution of the cetaceans? What's the reason for the gradually changing fossil specimens, which started off with hind legs and then gradually lost them as geological time passed?

Here is a list in order, I encourage those with an open mind to check them out at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans.



(the impossibly cute) Ambulocetus,













Why is it that the legs got progressively smaller with time if they aren't simply vestigal? Surely they would stay the same size? Or wouldn't be there at all? After all why would a dolphin or a whale need tiny leg bones inside their body, which used to be bigger, and further back, used to be actual legs?

There is a similarly clear and interesting record of evolution for the horse too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse .

These examples show exactly the 'transitional forms' or 'missing links' of which the religionists and creationists deny existence.


Re: Would you like to be fried with that?

Oh dear. Where did you get these arguments? Christian Apologetics for Dummies?

Your comment reeks of contempt for those with a less religious world view. If I were religious, I might even be tempted to warn you about the deadly sin of pride, but I'm not, so I won't. You also demonstrate a level of confidence which is both remarkable and ill advised in someone so ignorant of their basic argument. So, as you have been so disdainful of those with a rational world view, I won't make too much effort to be polite.

Before I get on to my main point, let me say that it's not the fault of others that you lack the imagination and intellect to understand how a sense of morality might evolve. There are many mathematical models demonstrating just that, but I don't expect you to aquaint yourself with them as it might make you confront reality. The fact that we see cooperation and collaboration in other species, especially primates (even in Wolves) might also cause you distress, after realising we are just another species! Watch yourself - that's your sin of pride showing again! But interestingly, that 'inbuilt morality' you incorrectly ascribe to God, breaks down in many situations. Situations that threaten our safety or awaken our tribal or territorial instincts. We also have FAR less empathy and feel FAR less protective of humans that aren't in our social group and/or don't look like us. This is exactly what one would expect from evolved behaviours.

Also, your conflation of biology with politics is a nonsense, as is your assertion that an atheistic materialistic worldview is a harsh reality. It's fine for me thanks, cause I'm a grown up. That said, you should realise that the extent to which you would like to believe in a certain fluffy, smiley and happy worldview has absolutely no bearing on whether it is actually true. Wishfull thinking, it's a bugger isn't it?

Anyway, on to my main counterpoint to your teenage theology, you said:

'Society would descend into something like The Purge mixed with 1984, I'd imagine. Yet it doesn't. And surprise, it's because of an innate morality in people, not because of the eyes of the law.'

Surpise! Empirical reality provides us with copious amounts of evidence to the contrary. Are you not familiar with the 1969 riots in Murray-Hill, Montreal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot. Police and firefighters went on strike and within hours, social order disintegrated. To quote Steven Pinker:

"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 a.m. on October 7, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 am, the first bank was robbed. By noon, most of the downtown stores were closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist)."

Then there's the folks in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Peace and order only returned when 6500 National Guard troops arrived to remind people of their "innate morality".

Dreadful things occur when law and order truly breaks down - the Srebrenica Massacre, the Rwandan Genocide and the like occurred in such circumstances. This also happens when leadership is morally corrupt and allows or encourages such acts. Clearly neither 'inherent morality' or any 'God' that could enforce it, was effective in preventing twisted leaders being above the law. Tellingly many of the worst attrocities of recent times were committed by one religious group on another e.g. the Armenian and Greek genocides, or the religious massacres in the Punjab around the time of Indian partition. Was God on holiday?

To answer your main rhetorical question: 'who's stopping somebody who's very powerful as to be above the law (therefore a favorite of natural selection), who also happens to believe that "anything goes", from acting on this belief?'

No-one, that's why monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Al-Bagdhadi (ISIS), Attaturk, Idi Amin were able to act so inhumanely to their fellow human beings. Some were religious, some not, but that ain't the point - no one was there to control them and 'God' Certainly didn't show up to fix things before they went out of control.

To quote David Hulme: 'Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?'

On top of all that is the copious evidenence that the religiosity of a nation is correlated with many negative measures of societal health. Religious countries are more violent, poorer, less altruistic, less educated and less happy on average than non-religious countries. The homicide rate of the 10 least religious countries is 1.01 per 100,000, that same stat for the most religious countries is 5.1! Even within the US, the most religious states have higher rates of homicide, child mortality and violent crime.

All you need to do is look at the most religious regimes. There have been and remain many, and ISIS is an excellent recent example. The abject brutality, cruelty and inhumanity of that regime are almost beyond description. Thankfully they have all but dissapeared now. But the truth remains that those scumbags ran their fiefdom in a way that was much closer to the letter and the spirit of the holy scriptures than any other Abrahamic religious regime of recent times. So WHO IS stopping them from being above the law? Again, no one.

Admins beware! Microsoft gives heads-up for 'disruptive' changes to authentication in Office 365 email service


God this is so juvenile and tiring. Instead of praising MS for taking a sensible and responsible decision on oauth, we get the usual shit Microsoft grumbles. Don't use MS if you don't like em, or don't work for a company that does.

I have been in this game a long time and am still surprised at the MS bashing on here and other channels. The conclusion I draw is that many commentards do this because they don't have the knowledge and experience to offer much in the way of informed opinion. It's an easy way to grab some tech kudos and pretend to yourself and others that you know more than you do. For those people I'll advise you on the facts: MS are a giant corporation, like Google (who are decidedly less ethical than MS even), Facebook (worse still, and in extremis) , Apple, Twitter et Al. The company has one purpose: generating cash. They all do.

I use Mint as a desktop and I love it, definitely better than Windows. But frig me, there are some annoying limitations and bugs in newly released versions. Strangely, people don't seem to mention them and class the entire Linux ecosystem as shite because Bluetooth is playing up on cinnamon desktop.

MS aren't uniquely bad, and you aren't on the smart side of the argument just because you slag them off. They have done enormous good and a lot of damage. And they have acted as shameless bullies and profiteers. You will NEVER find a big company that hasn't.

Yeah, Exchange Online might not have 100% uptime, but that is not why corporate customers use it. They use it because it meets their requirements on uptime, cost and supportability. Why is it that everyone on here expects perfection from Microsoft, but doesn't want to pay for it? I work for a cloud provider that provides much better uptime figures and better SLAs in other areas than MS / O365 / Azure. Trouble is, it costs a small fortune to provide that service, and few companies are willing to pay.

You (if you have a personal account) or your employer / customer sign up to those terms willingly, you know what the risks and benefits are. If service doesn't match your requirements, claim your service credits, then move your business elsewhere, move jobs if it's so unbearable.

In Azure / O365 you are leveraging economies of scale and division of labour to achieve low cost. You might not be getting vintage claret, but you're not paying for it either. You're not even asking for it! You're getting something lower end, but that's all you've bought. Change the bottle, pay a bit more, but if you can't afford top end plonk, you'll be on the Lambrini.

Not call, dude: UK govt says guaranteed surcharge-free EU roaming will end after Brexit transition period. Brits left at the mercy of networks



That's a very myopic view, not everyone is tech savvy. How would that work for my parents and their friends etc? They are in their 70s can hardly turn a phone on, don't know difference between 4g or wifi, took 6 months to train them to use Whatsapp, type at 1 word per minute? But yeah - they will have no problem swapping SIMs and switching providers. May as well ask a dog to explain general relativity.

Electron devs bond at Covalence conference: We speak to those mastering the cross-platform tech behind Slack, Visual Studio Code, etc


Visual Code Studio?

I'm always the last to hear of these new tools that all the cool kids and scrum whatsits are using. I'm still using boring old Visual Studio Code!

Microsoft boffin inadvertently highlights .NET image woes by running C# on Windows 3.11


Re: VisualBasic developers are daft enough to fail to realize this

This is what Trump doesn't understand about economics - if there are two parties involved in an arrangement they can both benefit. It's not a black and white win/lose scenario. You as the developer can win, as can Microsoft; they are not mutually exclusive.

Microsoft joins Google and Mozilla in adopting DNS over HTTPS data security protocol


Re: Real Issue

This is just lazy, boring and uninformed Microsoft bashing.

There is no reason a DC would need IIS to run DNS over HTTPS. You don’t need IIS to unwrap data in a HTTP/S request. AD servers commonly expose several RESTfull / SOAP APIs, AD web services is an example.

And the remark about IIS being a buggy insecure turd? Have you seen the number of vulns in Tomcat for example? IIS is commonly run on DCs and required for some roles on Enterprise CAs. It’s also required for AD Federation Services that manage SSO and other auth mechanisms. Both those roles often are placed on domain controllers. How often do you hear a large corporation was hacked because the IIS site running web enrollment was breached or someone hijacked their domain because insecure IIS was running on the ADFS server? You don’t.

I’m no MS fan, but it grinds my gears when people talk rubbish, slagging a big company off cause it’s cool, when they obviously don’t know much about the subject in question.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021