Re: this hacking news is hard to swallow
'Ere, I was writing with that!
No, no - you can hang onto it now.
5065 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Nov 2021
This all went on in Loxley House - so this is what happens when the Sheriff wins and kicks out Robin from the ancestral pile, we are left with nothing better than the effete Norman sensibilities. No more the stout hearts of the Sons of Wayland[1] and the Daughters of Boudicca.
[1] ok, he is Germanic and a bit Norse, but close enough.
> You usually test turning off one IT system
You usually test - inadequately, in that case.
> It's very rare that you test turning off your entire IT estate and then bring it all back online.
Because, as we all know, losing electric power to an entire building - or entire section of the local grid - never happens. On the contrary, systems only ever lose power one at a time.
(Haven't bothered counting how many power cuts our locality has had so far in 2025, definitely more than four; probably ought to put the UPS stats onto a dashboard. Add that to the list).
Well, apart from all the tidying up and finishing any handover that hadn't been completed, signing off this that and the other, ensuring that both sides have all the legal paperwork completed and rushing around to find those missing TPS Report Cover Sheets so everyone is happy that their organisation won't be caught out by any loose ends come the inevitable audits.
Crossing all the 't's and dotting all the 'i's as they say.
Oh, and maybe triggering any early-termination clauses and reparations.
I'd also suggest they'd miss out on a Last Day get together, where all involved individuals get together and (hopefully) celebrate a Job Well Done, but there are - certain parties around here - who would then just denounce that as wasted expense, despite the clear future value of individuals - as well as companies - parting friends and remembering each other later on when there something that needs doing and they just happen to remember old wozzisname from that job three years ago...[1]
[1] then again, too many companies - and other groups - miss out on those sorts of advantages and just let the connections drop; more fool them.
> But I don’t see a need for a license. Licenses are what company lawyers fret about.
So your intent is to release code and prevent companies from using it? And also to prevent anyone who doesn't mind companies using their code from making any use of your code? And possibly any post-grad work that is intended to be published and shared. Definitely not anything that anybody hopes to spin-off from academic work (obviously, as that goes straight into the "company" category).
But without having to bother actually, you know, writing that out explicitly, just leaving a trap for the unwary.
An interesting approach.
Still, at least you avoided the trap of saying that you had released your code into "Public Domain" :-) It gets bothersome having to point out that PD is not a worldwide concept.
DOGE Cuts Off 200,000 Government Credit Cards: What To Know - ok, now what in that do you believe indicates that government workers are getting any stipend for entertainment, restaurant eating or anything at all other than use
All that is in there is, again, the indication that DOGE is wasting money to cancel cards that are unused (or whatever they define as "unnecessary" - strangely undefined): and as has been pointed out before, <5% of the cards issued have been cancelled, which is a triviality from the point of view of running the departments. As indicated by DOGE's own silence over whether cancelling these is going to save a single buck: "The department, however, did not say how much money the federal government would actually save by deactivating these cards—a question that was asked over and over by X users responding to the department's announcement."
But, no, ignoring totally what the news report *you* have linked to actually says, you are somehow - and we all note that you haven't tried quoting from that article - bending it to mean that all these credit cards - these UNUSED credit cards - were somehow being used to pay for restaurant meals AS AN EXTRA to the employee's wages.
So, precisely what part of YOUR citation backs up YOUR claims?
Come on: give us a quote from the article you have cited.
>> Or you seem to think that government workers should only get enough pay to cover the absolute basics."
> Wtf are you talking about? They get a wage, this is on top of.
What, you are now claiming that government workers have been getting extra stipends, above their wages, for going to restaurants - dare I say, but: Citation Needed!
And then, oh dearie me, we're back at this sort of foolishness[1]:
>> If your job does not pay you enough to budget any discretionary spending on entertainment
> Are you claiming they dont get paid enough for their work?
No. You == codejunky. This is obvious from the fact I was responding to - and directly quoted - a line you wrote about your claimed job. And you were soliciting for donations for your entertainment budget. From a poor AC who doesn't even have the funds to afford a proper nickname on The Register - is there no limit to your shame?
[1] Here, let me help you. Start with this:
See John. See John Run. Run, John, Run.
> . But you seem to think on top of that the nations taxpayers should fund the local economy of discretionary spending on top of the wage.
Or you seem to think that government workers should only get enough pay to cover the absolute basics.
> I have a job just as they do... So why dont you send me some money for my entertainment?
If your job does not pay you enough to budget any discretionary spending on entertainment, you ought to spend more time on it rather than putting so much effort into posting here.
> you would not believe the grief I get for saying that elsewhere
There is a time and a place...
"Are you the expecting Dad? Come quickly!" "It's multi dimensional!" "Mummy, you're sure you want him here?"
"Excuse me, sir, but is this your vehicle?" "Markov Chain!" "Of course, sir; now blow gently"
I found a book on Fortran in an academic bookshop in Brighton and just read it for fun (!) before I had any access to a computer. When that did come, it was in the form of CESIL, which was a bit if a let down.
At Uni, we did do some Fortran for a few weeks, mixed in with use of the four-colour pen plotter to jazz things up a bit: at last, my book learning paid off and my room got a few machine-drawn posters.
As a post-grad, Fortran really came into its own: you could be paid for teaching it to the undergrads!
I've seen a serial mouse for a BBC Micro have its DIN plug squashed onto the composite video BNC connector("well, they are both round"). Apparently it fell out a few times but then they got it to stay, before complainng it didn't work.
I would have laughed, but they were borrowing my computer and peripherals!
> It could also matter if one were trying to put this stuff into a CI/CD pipeline.
I'll admit that I've never been involved in anything that was claimed to be "CI/CD", the closest I've come is just having an automated build machine keeping a beady eye on the master source repository and firing off a fresh build whenever there is a commit. As soon as that build is done, everyone would be (able to) use ths outputs. Across various teams and projects, the first using RCS because CVS was still not invented.
In none of those setups, the build would take "generate C then compile the C"[1] in its stride - the worst issue being making sure you knew how many C modules were going to be generated.
Given that, can anyone say if Liam is right and such transforms, generally or in particular with respect to GnuCOBOL, why a CI/CD pipeline would have trouble?
[1] In this context, nothing special about C of course, and the generating pipeline could be anything required: take a Pic file, use it to generate a BMP, convert that to hex and wrap it into a C static array - of course, these days you'd do your watermark logo starting from SVG...
> the ghastly two-level syntax used for description was impenetrable to anyone trying to learn the language,
I found myself reading the Wikipedia page on W-grammars earlier today and I remembered why my lecturer thought I'd be intrigued by it; little things like
> The consistent substitution used in the first step is the same as substitution in predicate logic, and actually supports logic programming; it corresponds to unification in Prolog
Yay! Your grammar representation is insanely powerful, could itself be used to write complete programs (but not in a form that most programmers were used to) and, as a formalism for defining a language, having your grammar being formally undecidable is - not really appreciated. Yes, you want something more powerful than Backus Naur, but it is posible to go too far...
The only ALGOL variant I've actually coded in (so far - the compilers mentioned in TFA are in the notebook, one day, Real Soon Now) was SIMULA-67, which was great fun. Shame I never got to use in the outside world, but it was a good introduction to OOP.
I, for one, was overjoyed to get hold of the Forth-83 ROM for my BBC Micro. So much easier than loading the cassette Forth into the Atom and '83 had a round-robin task scheduler, great fun. A lot easier to write library code in than BASIC, even BBC BASIC.
But then again, I also enjoyed using the microProlog ROM so was clearly having a masochistic streak at the time.
> Algol-68 is the only language that I've been formally taught.
Ah ha, we have an expert among us! Come in, come in, welcome to the party.
Um, do you think you could take a look at this? (lifts fanfold to show a nasty little rash of syntax errors) I looked it up on the web and I may have twisted a W-grammar.
Curses. He is right! I copy'n'pasted the wrong commenter name when I quoted and then responded to the two lines, starting with "education, science, health, veterans, environment".
And in a fit of delirium (or possibly just a minor distraction, flicking between web pages) pressed CTRL-V in each of the placeholders left in the text, all without spotting the error.
Oh noes. A momentary slip of the mouse and I've totally destroyed my own arguments against any responses to the "education, science, health, veterans, environment" line!
Never mind that it is possible to read the entire comment, as it was written, with just a blank/placeholder instead of the poor Trygve's name (so sorry, man, didn't mean to misattribute to you) and take it apart on that basis - i.e. the meaning of the words.
> Not only did you respond about the wrong commenter
NOPE! I responded to YOU! I admit that I made a mistake in attributing a quote (again, sorry Trygve mate).
> This response is long enough without responding to each point
In other words, your only defence is to point out a misattribution, and feel that you can then use that to disparage the entire conversation, and that conveniently lets you of the hook from actually having to, you know, ENGAGE in any of the rebuttal.
PS
You know, it is allowed to point out a misattribution in a straightforward fashion, receive a simple calm reply and then carry on discussing the actual subject.
PPS
I really am sorry, Trygve, didn't mean to drag you into this.
> I suspect a lot of these savings are not actually savings
Some of them are even contracts, they are "blanket purchase agreements" that are intended to fix a cost for future purchases and make it easier (read: more efficient, cheaper) for departments to buy those materials and services: Dozens of DOGE ‘receipts’ saved no money and killed contracts meant to boost efficiency.
So killing those is guaranteed to cost more *and* you mustn't forget to ask how much it costs to have the DOGgiEs go in and widdle on the carpets like this.
> I suspect a lot of these savings are not actually savings
Not forgetting that some of the "savings" are entirely fictional and even DOGE "admitted"[1] that: DOGE Quietly Deletes the 5 Biggest Spending Cuts It Celebrated Last Week[2]
> I suspect a lot of these savings are not actually savings
and on and on...
[1] well, removed the entries and entirely failed to admit to having made a mistake. Isn't it great, being able to announce all the "winning" on platforms you can control, so the embarassments can just be - taken away in the middle of the night.
[2] dated 25/02/2025, just to say what "last week" refers to
> assuming their being "genius from MIT" made them the best fit for that job?
"SpeedBird 17 is in trouble, can you route to an alternative landing strip?"
Pick the appropriate response:
* "Is this SpeedBird spherical and in a vacuum?"
* "Hang on, I'm recalibrating the radar, I think I can use it for Magnetar detection"
* "Can you sign my funding request?"
* "Um, my doctorate was in Archaeological Materials; are there any unusual fired-clay pots involved?"
>> And, yet, those golfing trips...
> I know you think you are making a point there.
Well, one point being made is that you really are staggeringly incapable of looking things up on the Web:
Trump’s Florida golf weekends are costing taxpayers $18m, report says – as he hits the links again
The other point, of course, is that you see nothing at all wrong in Trump stealing millions of dollars from the tax payers.
>>>Are they? They are making cuts but the government is still there.
>> Except for education, science, health, veterans, environment
> Kids aint going to school? No science is being done? The hospitals have closed and doctors have vanished? There are no veterans left!? THE ENVIRONMENT HAS VANISHED?!?!?!?
Hmm, back a couple of responses and we see:
>>>> @that one in the corner ... you seem to struggle with simply reading the post
And yet, Trygve Henriksen clearly points out that the government departments dealing with "education, science, health, veterans, environment" are being gutted and you respond as though Trygve Henriksen said that those portions of the real-world have somehow disappeared! A quite staggeringly bad misreading.
> Kids aint going to school?
I certainly hope they still are (although it would not surprise me in the least to find that some schools been forced to end (some) classes) but the quality of the education (some of them receive, or will be able to receive in the near future) has gone down, due to the Trump's actions.
> No science is being done?
Less science is being done (or will be done, once the funds currently banked by the labs runs dry, as the replenishment has been halted)
> The hospitals have closed and doctors have vanished?
You seem to be unaware of what the DoH is concerned with, particularly in the heavily privatised US health economy, where the (vast majority) of hospitals and doctors are corporate. I know, you are used to the NHS, but the US system is different. You may wish to learn what governmental - well, most correctly, federal, instutions such as "the CDC" are and how they have been affected by Musk. And what the long-term affects of that are going to be, as the information the CDC would usually handle is no longer provided to the privatised sector.
> There are no veterans left!?
Of course there are veterans left, but the services they rely on are being damaged. Meaning that there may well be fewer veterans left in the not too distant future, compared to what there ought to be (see also health - and environment).
> THE ENVIRONMENT HAS VANISHED?!?!?!?
Whilst one might heartily wish that some small portions of The Environment would suddenly vanish and leave certain parties gasping in a vacuum, the physical environment is indeed still present (congratulations on noticing that, Gold Star), but important parts of the US government that investigate it have been shuttered, or are on their last legs (refer back to the points about "science being done").
One simple line from Trygve Henriksen, seven words, none of them overly sesquipedalian and yet you struggled. Sigh. And the chaos of exclamation and question marks really does help to highlight how egregiously you misunderstood.
We'll skip over, for now (unless you decide to bring it up) the little matter of the your response to Trygve Henriksen's second sentence, as we are all so aware of how much you wish you were an American stereotype and, with that aim, are practising (oh, sorry "practicing") the inability to comprehend sarcasm or irony.
> I am fairly sure he has difficulty reading based on previous interactions.
Oh come on, codejunky, you can do better than that!
There is a whole wealth of insults, both witty and vulgar, that you could fling to better affect; oh, if only you knew how to find them.
> I don't think you paid attention to the last sentence, the one about the debt.
Oh, I did.
It is simply that the effort being put into DOGE's games aren't doing anything substantial about the debt, going by what they find to boast about on doge.com, and the cost to repair the damage they are causing is going to drive the US into *real* debt, both nationally and internationally, in every currency.
I've been "enjoying" the discussions around ISO 8601 and how the effect it has when a zero is used to indicate "not (yet) known" can lead to Social Security records "showing" people to be approximately 150 years old - if you happen to be too computer illiterate to be trusted near a Tomy box.
The big picture of cyber security risks is important (well, duh) and the results of all these incompetencies are (going to be) devastating. It is also good, if we can, to dig into the extra tech details of where and how some of the other - problematic results - are being generated.
>> That is a long, long way from the conspiratorial claim that the lab "made Covid-19".
> That has changed since Biden became president
The claim about the source of the virus is one of science - Biden or any other politician is irrelevant. Unless you are just using presidential terms as your measure of time, when others would usually years in the Common Era measure (or even BC/AD, as BCE/CE still rings strange to older ears).
> Now its almost certainty that is came from the lab
Citation?
(Also, note, that "came out of a lab" is very different to "made in that lab" - and that is different to "made deliberately - i.e. the intent was to make that specific virus" and different from "made with the intent to release", just in case anyone reading is wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes).
> only thing keeping from absolute certainty is China blocking outsiders and destroying evidence
Citation? Ok, I believe that one has a stronger probability of accuracy, but - any such personal belief is irrelevant
> Yet the virus itself has a feature not seen in nature
Citation?
> but the very feature introduced and used for the gain of function research
Citation?
> No cross over animal has been found
Do you mean *THE* specific animal (which would be an amazingly lucky find) or, at the other end of the spectrum, the discussion about which species that particular animal was
> THE virus that travelled a huge distance (to be worked on in the lab) somehow...
The wet market in Wuhan in about 12km from the lab, according to Google Earth. Hardly a "huge distance". The "somehow" is going to be a combination of walking and driving, split between the unfortunate(s) who picked it up at the market and the various medics and then researchers who collected and delivered samples. However, even if we were to suppose that it was carried by one bat from the market to the lab - well, bats can fly much further than that in one night.
> ... is in a bat on the wet market so far away from origin
The origin point was the wet market. As we don't have "THE bat" in hand it is impossible to say how far its roost was from the market, but it could well have been as distant as "under the roof immediately above the market".
> the probability that your belief is correct diminishes with every revelation
Perhaps the confusion is that I'm holding out for evidence and citations of such, rather than Belief and Revelations?
> gain of function research that Obama banned the doing or funding of
The White House today stepped into an ongoing debate about controversial virus experiments with a startling announcement: It is halting all federal funding for so-called gain-of-function (GOF) studies that alter a pathogen to make it more transmissible or deadly so that experts can work out a U.S. government-wide policy for weighing the risks. October, 2014 - a pause, a moratium, NOT a ban. Today, the National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting a funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. December 2017. As it says. A moratorium, in the US only, of a bit over 3 years, after which work continued as normal.
> So the funding was not only against the rules set out by Obama
Citation? For funds that were approved of within the moratorium period and *specifically* handed over for GoF research?
> So the funding was ... also a stupid idea
What? Agree that GoF research is a stupid idea? Absolutely not (from the second citation, above): GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.
PS
Possibly a cheap shot, but:
> obviously unreliable country (blocked WHO access)
Nowadays, that would mean the USA, no longer a member of WHO.
Beginning to wonder how many people actually read the references they post as links:
>>>> Didn't Billy Clinton and Obama both promise to cut government waste ...?
>>> Nope
>> You sure?
>> National Partnership for Reinventing Government
Well, it does look like Clinton promised to cut government waste and set up an office to do that; the result was something of a curate's egg:
> Clinton assigned the project to Gore with a six-month deadline to develop the plan.
Far better than the (at best) six minutes that the current "plan" took to dream up.
> In 1993, Congress rejected many NPR proposed departmental cuts, demonstrating that NPR could not achieve its goals without congressional support.
Oopsie. However, all was not lost:
> Procurement reform bills were enacted
In the end though
> NPR is recognized as a success and had a lasting impact
>>> and then do absolutely nothing?
That would appear to be an inaccurate assessment of Clinton's results.
On the other hand:
> During its five years, it catalyzed significant changes in the way the federal government operates, including ... the transfer of institutional knowledge to contractors.
That can never go wrong!
> What did the bible write about the Americas?
Amazing what you can find out there. Shudder.
Of course, once you've learnt how to type into Google[1] the trick is to cross-check against other hits and verify the likelihood that the source is a total pile of pants (e.g., even Liberty University manages not to drop that far down the well so we can just quietly ignore "Amazing facts" now[2]).
> Do these really exist?
The Americas are the fabled place where the unicorns went to live.
[1] other search engines are available, eg DDG. Except Bing; never Bing. Bing does not exist.
[2] bugger; I bet at least two of you have clicked on that URL by now and have sent their Alexa rating skyrocketing!
> USAID and the DOD funded Ecohealth alliance, they in turn funded gain of function research at the wuhan lab
True. They funded - well, part-funded - research into how viruses work.
That is a long, long way from the conspiratorial claim that the lab "made Covid-19".
You might as well say that, because the CDC researched[1] into the annual variation of influenza strains that they were responsible for creating all the new varieties with which to infect the US population, and then applaud cutting back the CDC and redirecting what is left into lunatic fringe work.
chromodynamics? That'd be Genesis 37:3 - and the quantum stuff is clearly the explanation for Genesis 37:5 to 7 and 37:9, whilst Genesis 37:29 illustrates tunneling.
We need NASA because all the muck we've been putting into the air is causing The Bowl Of The Firmament to become soiled - you can see the proof of this by looking at any so-called "Deep Sky" photograph. All those fuzzy things are obviously just muck (from chimneys of factories making the implants that go into vaccines), and smudges caused by all the rockets bouncing off (you can clearly see that rockets go up, then sideways as they hit, and finally down to the horizon, where they are dumped into the sea).
NASA must be repurposed to create a giant mop-on-an-extensible-pole that can be used to squeegee the Firmament and restore it to its pristine Glory.
After that, any leftover NASA rovers can be used to probe the Antartic Ice Wall. No, hang one, that would be silly. The rovers would only rust.
> Let's cut a bunch of contracts
Don't forget that the contracts to SDVOSBs are directly helping disabled veterans - you know, the thing that is the whole purpose of the VA's existence - by supporting their businesses, whilst also getting back useful services for that money, so it isn't "just" going into handouts. What a sane person might call a "win-win".
I swear that I tell Windows not to update until I say so. So last night a Windows box is left doing an overnight build, for the first time in an age, and - yup, this morning it is sitting there, job incomplete, console windows closed.
I know, my fault, you must always check the position of the stars (and other calendars) to see if this will be an inauspicious night to leave Windows unattended.
> The problem doesn't seem to be a lack of solutions, but rather the opposite
You aren't kidding:
> Meanwhile, the portable UI community seem to be more interested in Avalonia.
ANOTHER one? I'd not even heard of "Avalonia" before today!
Mutter, mutter, why can't people all get behind one of the existing projects and complete the damn thing, as a portability platform, without spec creep and bloat, and without "oh, this is too old fashioned, so much easier to start again"?
>> the Javascript framework of the day.
Yeah, just like that.
.