Posts by Necrohamster 482 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Jan 2022
I wholeheartedly support the right of the good citizens of the Duchy of Muscovy to take up arms against their oppressors.
Wait, what's that? The Duchy of Muscovy hasn't existed since the Middle Ages, so the AC's comment is pointless apart from being a reminder that not all colonisers can be fought off successfully?
"...It still can't explain why France can't secure it's borders"
France can secure its borders just fine, but the problem for the UK is that France (as a country or at a governmental level) doesn't really like you.
There's no incentive to help now that the UK's outside the EU. Your problems are not their problems...whether we're talking about migration, trade or whatever.
Wikipedia: List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom
"This list is incomplete. You can help by expanding this list." :D
The stupid Rwanda plan is only there because our halfwit politicians looked to Australia (another faraway place we used to send so-called criminals and undesirables) and noticed that the Papua New Guinea refugee offshoring thing seemed to be working out pretty well for the Aussies.
"Just as the colonizers crimes can't be excused neither can the colonized."
Not true. Any fight to remove a coloniser is a valid one.
Of course a coloniser will claim otherwise, but you don't get to take over a country and act surprised when the population fights back.
I notice you use the American spelling of the word "colonise". Are you American, and if so, do you see the American Revolutionaries who defeated the British as criminals or heroes?
I know, right? He should have done some more thinking before voting.
"...the UK must stay in ECHR as a check against governments overreaching the power we gave them to make decisions on our behalf."
Translation: "...despite voting for Brexit I believe our government can't be trusted to respect our human rights without Europe's oversight."
Quite a convincing argument.
Which is what Esther Ghey said in the article you linked to:
"Since the trial, she has been calling for smartphones to be banned for children under 16 and has started a petition, which now has more than 90,000 signatures"
If teens want a phone, they'll find a way to get one and there's nothing you can do about it. Same goes for drinking, smoking, etc.
Also from the article:
Ms Ghey told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm all for free speech but some of the comments I've seen on social media posts and some of the articles… they're just hateful comments.
If someone says "I'm all for x, but y", they are not actually all for the thing they claim to be. See also "I'm not racist, but [ insert racist thing here]".
I'm sympathetic to what Esther Ghey has endured, but once you have a child your primary role in life is educating and protecting them.
It's not the phone companies' responsibility.
It's not the social media companies' responsibility.
It's not the government's responsibility (except where they need to intervene for the child's immediate safety)
It's the parent's responsibility. And yes, life is hard, we all need to work, and time is in finite supply, Again I understand the lady's speaking from grief, but the government should not have to regulate aspects of *every* family's life to make someone's role as a parent easier.
And by 'educating' I don't just mean teaching them to count or read. Teach them to recognise dangerous situations. Teach them how to make good decisions and to think critically. Teach them that it's ok to ask for help. I suppose you could say that these things come under the category of 'protecting' too.
I don't believe in monitoring a child's communication (either with software or "hand over your phone, it's time for a check"). It sends the message that you don't trust them, and can damage your relationship (or drive a child away). Of course, some people will be ok with this...
You might want to add a good 3rd-party antivirus, though. Good luck finding one.
I believe Avast works with Windows back to XP.
is it any good? Who knows? I doubt Which? or Consumer Reports are doing much testing of AVs for retro operating systems.
There are enterprise AVs which support everything back to Windows 2000 but you're going to be spending all your time troubleshooting certificate problems
"...diseases like Polio running rampant, racism was socially acceptable, sexism was socially acceptable, people didn't know the dangers of smoking, cars didn't necessarily have seatbelts, and if you lived to be 70 it was like the equivalent of living to 100 today."
Apart from the bit about cars not having seatbelts, you could be describing the 2020s.
I agree in theory, but Betty who comes in four days a month to do the accounts isn't going to fire up QEMU on her Linux box so she can get the payroll done in QuickBooks or Sage in a Windows VM.
Anybody who says otherwise has never dealt with the dear semi-retired ladies like Betty who do the books for small businesses. :D
And medium to large businesses simply don't use Linux on the desktop, so there's no discussion to be had there unfortunately.
"Chromebooks are Linux."
ChromeOS is based on the Linux kernel, so yeah kinda.
Can you install any Linux application? No.
You can install *some* Linux applications if you use the "Linux (Beta)" feature, but support wasn't great the last time I checked.
ChromeOS also lacks the userland you typically see in a traditional Linux distribution.
The only reasons that ChromeOS machines are attractive to organisations like schools are because the devices are cheap to buy and easy to manage. That's pretty much it.
"It seems a bit naïve to believe that a military superpower is using open radio communications."
1. Corruption. Some oligarch wins a contract to provide secure radios to the RU military. Instead the military gets basic Baofeng radios in a fancy shell case.
2. Stupidity. Ukrainian SBU monitors the phone calls the RU soldiers make on their personal phones.
3. Not just open radio comms. They use field telephones joined by cable just like it's WWI again.
"Superpower" is overstating things a bit. They just have a lot of cannonfodder.
Isaacson's "clarification":
"To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not."
contradicts what he wrote in his book:
"Throughout the evening and into the night, he personally took charge of the situation. Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast. As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly."
Now if Isaacson lost his mind or had an alternative recollection to what happened in reality, don't you think it's strange that the book mentions the oddly specific distance of 100km from the shore...if in fact the coverage wasn't there at all as Isaacson later claimed on Twitter? I don't believe a biographer would just invent such a random fact to fill out a paragraph in a book. I also don't believe the Ukrainian military would've sent out drones on the mere *THOUGHT* that they'd have coverage. Do you?
Anyway the book is still for sale with that same text, so I'd have my doubts that the "clarification" is real, and not the result of Musk's leaning on Isaacson to change the narrative because he realised version of events in the book made him look bad.
Like I said already: Musk is no stranger to revisionism.
Like you said already: he said/she said.
Musk regularly tries to revise the history of events, or put his spin on reality (like how Tesla recalls aren't actually recalls).
My money's on him being the source of the disinformation, rather than the Russians for once.
Snopes is great and all, but it's not the only source I look at when I try to figure out if something's true or not.
"...it was claimed that Starlink was never operating in Crimea ..."
The headline "Elon Musk sabotaged Ukrainian attack on Russian fleet in Crimea by turning off Starlink" suggests by its wording that Starlink was indeed active in the region until Musk ordered it to be turned off.
The article says...
"Musk on Thursday evening painted a slightly different picture to the one described by Isaacson. He said satellites in those regions were never turned on in the first place and he simply chose not to activate them."
however...
After speaking to the Russian ambassador to the United States — who reportedly told him an attack on Crimea would trigger a nuclear response — Musk took matters into his own hands and ordered his engineers to turn off Starlink coverage “within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast.””
Yup. It’s Teslas world. We’re all just Beta Testers in it.
'Fanboi' icon because...you know
Measles cases are rising in the UK so obviously the "I do my own research" halfwits aren't any more receptive to that vaccine than the COVID vaccine.
Dying of a preventable disease is a hell of a side effect.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
