1511 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
No wires? Great! One small problem...
Presumably when they say "not wired together" they don't include the power cables in that definition? Otherwise...
Yeah yeah, I know, pick pick pick.
Only when I reply to you
As then it's a comment in a comment on a comment. We have just a few seconds left bef
Johnny Depp was killed in a car crash?!?
I'd better tell everyone I know!
Was Engelbert Humperdinck in the car with him? I heard he was dead!
You should be bothered.
You can't set aside rights you don't like just so you can catch people you've decided are guilty in advance. It's that sort of attitude that ultimately leads to the way Labour are acting right now.
confusing terms now?
In the parlance of the debate, a "denialist" is someone who refuses to accept the AGW hypothesis (not theory - it is, by and large, not falsifiable so it doesn't qualify). Nobody on the sceptical side and very few people on the "warmist" side (See I can throw epithets as well!) believes that the climate never changes - though you might think that the AGW promoters do believe it based on their characterisation of the last few thousand years and their talk about climate stability and equilibrium.
From my position all the "fudging" seems to take place on the pro side. Just this week, FOI requested material from NASA has demonstrated that their climate researchers have pretty much adulterated their data to meaningless, replacing actual temperature data with grid-averaged data points that have no relation to actual temperature data. And, it's fairly easy to demonstrate that the temperature data itself is suspect, with very few long-term records of any reliability. The entire AGW hypothesis is based on little more than wishful thinking and stubborn refusal to accept that the idea might be wrong.
Now, a moment before I said that AGW isn't falsifiable. This isn't strictly true, there is a single falsification available. In the IPCC AR4 section 9 there is a description of various expected temperature profiles expected to appear in the troposphere depending on what particular mechanisms are affecting modelled changes. The models, without fail, show an easily verifiable hotspot in the troposphere., This is called a unique effect of AGW, and its presence is definitive proof. If the hotspot isn't there, the warming isn't man made. And, you know what? No hot spot.
And @Douglas Lowe
Yes, really. How did the BBC cover the reported release? At as much distance as they could for as little time as possible. They initially refused to report on the issue at all, and then reported it only as a criminal act. As far as I'm aware their coverage of the actual content of the documents and e-mails has been near enough to minimal as to be non-existent and for most of their coverage they simply repeated the CRU's line that it was a "hack" and that the content didn't matter, without actually reporting what that content was. Other major news reporters have also refused to cover the issue, initially for fear of falling foul of the law and later because the debate has been turned away from the content toward the alleged criminal intent of the release.
"hack" that wasn't
I don't understand why people continue to refer to this incident as a "hack" when it is blatantly obvious that it was an internal leak. A hacker wouldn't have been able to collate the necessary files in such a short time - and the files themselves are pretty much what was asked for in numerous foi requests. The released zip containing them was even named foi200- something. 9 I think. Anyway, the point is that refering to it as a hack feeds into bizarre daily mail-style conspiracies that it was the Russians or Chinese wot did it - when in reality both stand to gain massively from the current state of the agw debate. Why would they jeopardise potentially huge revenue streams that would simultaneously drain the west of wealth and power? the fact that it was initially released on realclimate and only later uploaded to a Russian FTP points to a researcher who may have been disgusted with the unscientific behaviour of his collegues, or may have been trying to score points in some sort of academic spat.
Regardless, hack it most certainly was not.
Feeling a bit frazzled? Maybe you should take your own advice and clock out early.
Hey, it's friday! When did that happen?
Nick the stuff and you're up the duff?
"Redmond says it has no intention of offering one, insisting it will focus on supporting other phone makers and carriers with its Windows Mobile OS."
Didn't Google say that last year?
Cue hundreds of Scanian men checking their phones for a call to 112.
Of course the language support sucks. They've gone for the largest language groups on the planet first. I can see why they did it, it's easier, and if I've learned anything from Google it's that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing a half-arsed job of it.
Or was that Microsoft?
Has anyone spotted a beta sticker on the thing yet? I'm sure it'll be there somewhere.
What for the price of what?
If I saw a Ferrari for the price of a mini cooper I'd check it wasn't just a glass fibre ferrari body stuck to an old ford cortina.
I recall the same thingwas said about bees
Granted, bees are physical entities that can be empirically studied, whereas angels are spiritual noncorporeal beings that are only represented in certain ways in art because it looks pretty. No biblical or religious account of angels ever mentions wings.
Assuming angels exist and assuming they take on the popular appearance, that doesn't mean they can't fly. It just means that if they were an actual physical creature they wouldn't be able to fly. but they aren't an actual physical creature. Any appearance they might hypothetically adopt would be just that - an appearance. A mask. A persona.
What I'm trying to say is that angels as depicted in popular imagery don't exist.
Now, a more important question that needs answering is, does a Balrog have wings?d how many politicians can dance on the tip of a wind turbine blade?
I don't know...
Makes a change from Hitler.
TO use an absolutely terrible and highly offensive analogy...
Where would we be. Think about it... motorways, affordable cars, more and cheaper land, the rocket, the jet plane...
Fro this end of history we take all these things for granted, but in another era, not so long ago, all of this was brand new and all of it was promised for only a small price of an entire nation's soul.
Granted the analogy isn't perfect, however the point remains: allowing what might be loosely termed bad behaviour, or the "evil" of allowing one corporation to be the final arbiter of what information you are allowed to find on the internet, in exchange for a few trifles and trinkets is at the very best short-sighted and at worst wilfully ignorant of how these sort of things turn out. When a single entity controls your access to information, as Google is trying to do right now, you are no longer free.
Beer and freedom?
It's fair to say that having one usually makes up for a lack of the other.
I was shite,
It required a plugin,
The plugin was also shite - THREE things...
Finding the ruddy great crane they used to lift it would be fairly easy. It's not like these things can just be pushed up a pair of planks.
Star Wars? Forget that...
Battletech all the way. Perhaps we'll finally get a working TimberWolf.
What if they don't have a warrant but just wander in one day because you had your door slightly ajar and then demand to look in the box? That's what this law amounts to. The police.security services, under this law, have the power to demand anything from you without actually having any particular reason for it. They can demand you hand over the keys to the box, so to speak, and then arrest you when you refuse to do so, and take your DNA for their database at the same time.
But, it's been the right of the English to refuse that demand for centuries. This is just another case of the government criminalising something for the sake of making a new crime. You get a shiny new criminal record for something that IS NOT A CRIME, no matter what "the law" says. The law is simply wrong.
Energy is never created or destroyed, you're right, but it does become less useful as time passes. Energy is only useful as long as there's a gradient, with areas where there is high energy and areas where there is low energy. Once the gradient disappears and the energy is evenly distributed everywhere, you can have all the energy in the universe and not do a thing with it.
In realistic terms that isn't a problem for us. We have sources of energy that can be prompted to release that energy with very little hassle.
One area these things might come in useful is extracting solar energy. Every exposed rock and lump of concrete soaks up the sun's energy during the day and radiates it again, as anyone who's leaned on a building that faces south in the later afternoon will be able to tell you. Especially in the summer. Imagine being able to harvest all of that heat energy. Of course it would only work most effectively in the summer and in hot countries.
MS seem to like typos
Whenever I plug my keyboard into the only MS box I have left it tells me it's installing a USB Keykoard.
Is that why they stuck with IE6 for years and then went from six to eight before Vista was even released? Three browser releases on a single OS release. Granted, 8 was a beta but, even so, I don't recall there being two desktop operating systems in between XP and Vista. Of course I might be missing something...
Of course, it has to be...
MINESWEEPER: The movie!
Years ago. Sony are behind the times.
Actually, now the Lisbon constitutional-in-all-but-name treaty has been signed, Whitehall *is* redundant. Whilst I oppose the EU in principle I have to say, if we're stuck in it, at least lets acknowledge the fact and get rid of the useless show-parliament. No more Brown, no more Cameron, no more expenses fiddling. Well... none *here* at any rate.
Dad has often said that he'll only start using computers when he can talk to them. You'll find that a lot of these "oldies" are only avoiding computers because they're still basically the same as they were in the 1980s, they just look flashy and shiny but you still have to use a keyboard and mouse. Try using one of those when your fingers are curled round from arthritis. My 79 year-old grandmother manages it but that's because she's a persistent... person.
This idea that the fogies of the future won't be able to keep up with technology is rubbish, if future technology is actually going to make its own use easier then they'll be able to keep up far better. I know I will.
Confusing it is
I was apparently one of the people affected by this, even though I don't remember signing up to the Guardia in the first place. It must have been years ago.
Anyway, I tried signing in on the e-mail address they'd contacted me at and lo and behold, my account was gone. Had they expired it before the attack? Or had the attack somehow deleted it? But if it had, how did they contact me?
I get the feeling they haven't just e-mailed the people affected. they've emailed everyone who was ever registered even if they don't have sensitive details on their database any more. Of course the alternative to that is that they're holding my information without providing any way for me to remove it, which I understand is somewhat illegal...
And I was just considering applying for temp work in IT support...
@Sir Runcible Spoon
Mostly, though there was a yellow one in the 60s, and a pink one ridden by Carey Grant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ttd48u0J0
"What exactly makes CSRF exclusively a 'Web 2.0' vulnerability?"
Last sentence is easy
They're checking to see who else in the cabinet has screwed up on this so they can shuffle it under the carpet.
How about that...
I guess money really *does* buy happiness.
The armni with the rolls of fifty quid notes in the pockets. And step on it!
The problem isn't so much "zero tolerance" in and of itself, but the fact that the government created entire new categories of crime and then pursued the prosecution of those new crimes with a vigour that would have been commendable, if only it were applied to *real* crime.
Zero tolerance for crimes against physical property and person is all you need as a foundation (for instance, graffiti taggers, who are causing physical damage to private property). Everything else falls into place behind that. In theory...
What I'm trying to say is, they should get rid of all the rafts of arbitrary new "crimes" they've created in the last decade. Calling someone a name isn't a crime. Hitting them with a lump of wood is.
Of course, removing all that legislation would mean that the government suddenly lost thousands of income streams and a similar amount of ability to threaten people and control their lives, so you know it's not going to happen any time soon.
@Dazed and Confused
Ask the train conductors, they'll know.
Go read a dictionary.
@everyone latching on to "in a video game"
Duh. This thing called sarcasm? Heard of it? Apparently not.
"The bigger these databases get the more unlikely it is that you would even be found by someone who knows you."
That would be true if everyone were trawling through the entire database to look but you neglect that Street View is a geographically linked service. It's very easy to go looking around your local area in the service so in effect it increases the chances if people being "caught out" (whatever they might be doing) by someone they know.
A very similar justification was used for the implementation of a variety of surveillance schemes allegedly designed to prevent terrorism.
The three justifications for any bad legal creation are:
It's for the sake of the children
It only affects a tiny minority
The innocent have nothing to fear
I am absolutely mystified by the attitude behind this idea. One of the reasons Microsoft is attacked so often is because its software makes it trivially easy for people to snoop about in your computer. Now we have an author on the Reg complaining about software that's been built in such a way that it doesn't have these problems? Make up your minds for god's sake!
One possible reason.
Pulling the app layer off the phone onto centralised systems, turning the phone into a dumb terminal. You'd need low latency and high bandwidth to achieve that. It would also make monitoring for "security" purposes much easier.
Why should anyone get an apology?
The people who were persecuted are dead, the people who did the persecuting are dead. Apologies are meaningless if they are carried out by people who have no stake in the matter. It would be like me apologising for the fact that some of my ancestors once implemented the danegeld.
If it's less dense it'll be lighter. Easy.
Well the Hoaglands of this world might zero in on that, but think about it for a moment: a lump of iron soft enough for someone to make a visible footprint in would have to be hot enough to turn that foot to so much chared long pork in the time it took to make the print.
The one with the blacksmith's apron please.
Better yet, put them on a boat. Google surely has the cash to invest in a set of geostationary satellites with big fat data pipes on them, or perhaps they can just trail a cable to the nearest piece of coastline...
Actually that could work. Some sort of floating platform, like an oil rig only bigger. you could call it Fat Caroline. Where's the patent office?
They're actually called *cyberdyne*? Good grief...
(in anticipation of everyone else who said the same thing, I thought of it first! I'm just slow.)
Oh my god, I've travelled back to 1998! I must warn people about 9/11 and global warming!
No, it's because they're a bunch of little sh... ow-offs.
All this talk...
... about fibres, fibre channels and fabric puts me in mind of two cups and a piece of string. It's a grossly unfair idea but... it's just stuck, I can't help it.
The whole point of what this guy said is that she WASN'T using the account for public business! Why are people still spreading this idea?
Methinks you missed the point, good sir.
Has no place?
Well I would assume that teachers need to be able to discuss the subject when it comes up. To simply say "it has no place here!" would just encourage the typical child to start chasing up on the subject whenever they could, out of bloody-minded rebelliousness. Blanket censorship of an idea gives it a cachet. It's also unscientific.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- SOULLESS machine-intelligence ROBOT cars to hit Blighty in 2015
- China in MONOPOLY PROBE into Microsoft: Do not pass GO, do not collect 200 yuan
- BuzzGasm! Thirteen Astonishing True Facts You Never Knew About SCREWS