1002 posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
"Actually, some decades ago some smart people got together and thought of the problems involved in running a nuclear reactor. They designed something called the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications). It got around the cooling problem by realising that most of the cooling was needed when the nuclear reactor was providing power for propulsion. Which it did in that design by heating an exhaust gas."
I'd got to just before your comment by the time I'd come up with that idea. Sounds like I was pipped to the post by a few decades.
"And the solution any government (outside of North America) would be equally appropriate, simply advise the company that they are welcome to sell their products somewhere else. No significant numbers of employees locally should automatically mean a complete ban on all sales of all products by that company. And that means employees right up the chain. They want to move their production to Asia? No problem, please feel free to stop selling anything made there here."
How exactly would that work with things like software, or music for an even more fun example?
Re: Sounds bloody insecure
"The card information is stored in the same place as fingerprints, which has yet to be "broken in to"."
You should always say not yet known to have been broken into. You think if someone could do that they'd tell everyone? That would be a difficult thing to do, and so perhaps they might want to keep quiet about it.
"That would have nothing to do with Google, DavCrav. That would be an unsubstantiated rumour and there are existing laws about that. He could sue you and get the article taken down."
Good luck with that. If he's in a different jurisdiction, if the server is in a different jurisdiction, etc. Ask the music industry how difficult it is. Shall we see? If I said big_D is a squirrel botherer, maybe El Reg would take it down, especially if you complained, but another website, in a different part of the world, might just tell you to sod off, you big squirrel lover you.
"This is for accurate articles that are no longer relevant or no longer of public interest, but are public record and cannot be removed (accredited press etc,)."
It's actually for irrelevant, outdated, *or inaccurate* information.
And all these people moaning about freedom of speech should presumably be complaining about the new tougher sentences for abuse over the Internet. After all, freedom of speech.
If you would be so kind as to supply your name and address here so I can post scurrilous, and of course completely unsubstantiated, rumours about your squirrel fetishes then I would be much obliged. Of course, nobody looking you up on Google would worry about these squirrel love-in rumours but, you know, no smoke without fire.
"Homeland Security officials seized the servers in Texas in September 2011"
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 Homeland security finally scored one for the Good Guys against the terrorists by, er, seizing a server in Texas used to download music.
Re: Barking @Yet Another Anonymous Coward
"The biggest problem with Australia's voting system is not just that it's mandatory, it also uses what are called "preferences". Now, remember you HAVE to vote, and if you don't want to vote for Labor or Liberal, you could vote for a minority party like the Greens, the Sex Party, the Pirate Party, Hemp Party, One Nation and so on. But all of those parties are forced to stipulate "preferences" to other parties
Even an informal vote (e.g. a blank ballot paper, or one with a penis drawn all over it, or simply turning up and signing your name off and not putting a ballot in at all) is counted as a vote for the incumbent party, so you can't escape voting that way either."
Are you sure that's right? Although I'm not Australian, I (and Wikipedia) believe that Australia uses two forms of preferential voting system, a form of AV and a form of STV, and in both cases it is the voter who lists preferences.
"that something that is now fundamental, like the water, for everybody’s daily life has been entirely produced by men."
I hope she feels the same anything that was invented over about a hundred years ago, because these were almost certainly invented by men. Women have only really been inventing stuff in a way that means it's likely to see the light of day for the last hundred, maybe even fifty, years, and so she presumably turns her nose up at the following male inventions (in no particular order):
the periodic table;
the sewerage system (she might literally turn her nose up at this);
the anti-slavery movement;
She is such a blithering idiot.
Re: @Ian Michael GumbyHere's the rub...
"If he does not like it he should complain to the web sites of the reporting press, not to Google for finding them."
That wouldn't do much good. Newspapers are protected under public records provisions. However, Google isn't protected, and while they cannot know a priori that the information is wrong or out of date, this is personal information about people stored on their servers that they are making money from, and they should have a duty, when informed by people, to make sure that they sanitize their records of lies and outdated information.
Basically, it's Google trying to have its cake and eat it. Media companies are protected from this kind of data protection legislation because they are keepers of the public record. Google didn't want to be a media company, as they have other duties, telling the truth about things, etc., and can get fined if they don't. Google didn't want any of that old-fashioned law stuff being applied to it, so said no to being a media company. However, it still processes personal information, and stores it all over its servers, and spews it out to anyone who asks. As such it has a duty to people to make sure it's up to date and accurate.
It's a natural consequence of the data protection act, and if you are from the US you are probably not used to this whole government-doing-things-for-the-benefit-of-its-citizens thing, but occasionally it's pretty cool. We get holidays from work, companies cannot just fire you for no reason, the police can't just steal, sorry cause you to civilly forfeit, your stuff because they think it would be better if they had it, and so on.
"Spotify (which only exists because the alternative is zero revenue amid piracy) pays 0.007 USD per stream. So if you had a million plays that'd be 70 USD. You would get paid more working at the checkouts in Tesco."
Let's do a quick comparison. Generally, the creators get about 10% of revenue from an album sale, which has roughly ten tracks on it. If that album cost $10 (all numbers are chosen for simplicity) then each song gets the artist 10c. So an album would have to be played 1000 times for us to get roughly the same amount of revenue for the two.
But another point here is that it's possible to actually get a million streams fairly easily. Most of the people who are paying artists a pittance via Spotify wouldn't actually pay them anything at all otherwise. the idea is that a hundred times as many people will play your songs ten times, versus one person buying your album. Whether it's true or not, I don't know. If Spotify is too small for this effect to generate meaningful revenues, then it also cannot be cannibalizing album sales either, for exactly the same reason.
But the real question is: does Spotify make any money? If it doesn't then they cannot pay any more. Demand more, and Spotify goes bankrupt. It won't be replaced by a magical money tree, but back to copyright infringement.
"That simply means that income inequality is rising.
The measure has no meaning outside the country being measured, it's deleterious effects are psychological and result from comparing self to those at the top in your community and country. The only importance is your relative wealth in society.
That inequality between countries is dropping is nice, but has none of the positive effects on society which reduced inequality within a country does: reduced crime, reduced mortality, reduced child mortality, reduced unrest, increased trust, increased well-being, increased longevity."
This just sounds like rubbish. Reduced inequality across the globe has far better effects *for the average human* than keeping most people poor so a few working-class people in Europe can keep getting tax credits. Of your list, reduced mortality and reduced child mortality, increased well being and increased longevity are far better served on a global scale by taking money from the 80-90 decile and giving it to the bottom 50%. This will increase unrest and crime in the rich countries, but obviously reduce crime and unrest in poor countries, so again we are better globally.
Sure, your country or city will be in flames, but there won't be a war in Syria killing hundreds of thousands, so as a globe we are still doing better.
It's OK to be selfish, we have to be otherwise we'd give all of our money to poor countries, but we should also recognize that we can be selfish even while seemingly being selfless, because we are also generally ignorant of the big picture. Of course, taxing the 1% in the West and giving that money to the poor in the West doesn't appear to stop companies doing very well, and hence standards rising in poor countries as well, so we can maybe even do both!
But I want to take special issue with this line of rubbish: "The only importance is your relative wealth in society." That is complete garbage, as it is only true once you don't really have any problems. Poor people have to worry about clean water, shelter, food, how they would feed themselves if they get ill, access to medicine, etc. That you have to worry about whether you can afford a second flat screen, and you should because everyone else on your street has two, means that you don't have any actual real problems, and should shut up on a global scale. On a local scale, you might be right, but clearly what is important to *you* might not be important to *everyone else on the planet*. You getting that second flat screen might feel important to you, but is it worth killing a thousand children in Mozambique? You might think so, but morally surely it isn't.
Re: Its not about taking more...
"Let’s have a vision, and a target, for what the state could achieve on 10% taxation, instead of the 50% it currently consumes."
This isn't a great vision. In the UK (the only country I know well) state old age pensions are about 10% of GDP, at about £100bn (roughly, it's order of magnitude). Your 10% nonsense would mean that's it. No schools, hospitals, roads, army, police, fire, benefits, repayment of debt (third highest expenditure by department), government, parks, cleaning, universities, research, anything else you can think of.
Well done, you just broke the world. Or rather Herman Cain, with his idiot 999 plan did. It's fun because in the UK, 999 is the number for the emergency services.
Re: Political garndstanding and fiscal wankerisms
"In other words, Ireland's extortion result would be down by £100m a year, and the UK's up by £200m a year. The £100m clawed back would not go to investment at Google, but to various preferred taxfeeders in the UK. This is also going to help a lot towards paying back the national debt of £1'000'000m (that's not a typo)."
For investment at Google, notice that this is 1) most likely in the US anyway, not the UK, and 2) would probably really be money into a massive cash pile in the Cayman Islands, not investment. See Apple's $100bn cash pile as an example.
As for paying back the national debt, no £200m/year is not a lot. But 500 global companies avoiding/evading £200m/year each is £100bn/year, and that's the deficit.
Re: Vote Yes
"Oh dear - you probably don't even drink it (let alone spell it) Whisky"
He could prefer the Irish stuff.
Super Cali goes ballistic, Uber Pool is bogus: Ride sharing biz is illegal in the state, says regulator
"+1 for article title of the year."
In which case you should +1 the original authors of the headline, The Sun, of which this one is an homage/copy. It was after a football game where Inverness Caledonian Thistle beat Celtic, which is unlikely.
"Super Caley go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious".
Re: Absolute stark raving, swivel-eyed, dog fingering insanity
"The company has revenues of $2.9 billion, but a tiny profit of $150 million. It looks like they're being fleeced by their infrastructure costs (or someone's building an volcanic island lair in the Caribbean)"
Or they are not making much profit per unit because they price is low? Although it isn't really for an indie game, so yes, no idea where Minecraft (couple of guys in an office) spent $2.75bn in a year.
Re: My only thought
"Did you ask him why he decided not to turn down two billion dollars and keep it real in his bedsit?"
$115m in profit last year? That's some bedsit.
"I wouldn't count myself as an Establishment figure and I am independent of mind and of view. I represent the audience," she had insisted earlier."
Hmm. [clickety] Rona Fairhead, born Rona Haig, went to Yarm Grammar School (est. 1590), then St Catharine's College, Cambridge. President of the University Law Society, and a double first in law. MBA from Harvard, stints at Morgan Stanley, BAe, ICI, Pearson and the FT.
If she isn't an Establishment figure, who is?
What happens if the relationship pre-dates them joining the company?
This isn't a question about these people (not enough detail given in the article for this question to even be relevant in this case) but what happens if a couple both join a company after they get together, then the relationship goes south and they start slagging each other off, or as in this case one does it to the other? Does the fact that the relationship predates employment have any bearing on the law?
I'm just wondering if you can claim your texts to the person were sent in the personal capacity as 'biiter ex-partner', rather than co-worker?
I suspect the answer is that the law doesn't care about the relationship predating employment, but I wonder if such cases have come up before.
Re: Would the US risk a diplomatic incident?
The Swiss fines were for abetting tax evasion by US citizens by the US branch of the bank. We all know that Swiss banks engage in tax evasion. If they want to do with without the dollar markets then that's nothing to do with the US. But if they allow and encourage US citizens to evade US taxes, then they are guilty. I think moaning about extraterritoriality in this particular case (fines for sanction busting by foreign banks to foreign countries are a different matter entirely) is a bit like trying to get off on a technicality. If Switzerland and Swiss banks want to be the world's money launderer and tax evader then it and they should have to deal with the consequences of that.
Re: Would the US risk a diplomatic incident?
"Ah, the irony. First they got served cold by Putin, and now the Swiss are about to return some of their favours. As the Swiss don't have anti-terror backdoors in their legislation there are no real loopholes to exploit either."
The Swiss aren't exactly squeaky clean, but their crimes are of the abetting tax evasion kind. Would be a way to help reduce the US deficit: a few multi-billion dollar fines for Swiss banks for tax evasion would deal with a week or two's government overspend.
That's the payback's payback.
Re: There's a simple solution - fork Wikipedia
"Works both ways. If every content writer* left WP all the WMF needs to do suck up their content from wherever they happen put it."
What if the site licence for the new fork expressly forbade WMF from taking the content?
"Get ready: The top-bracket young coders of the 2020s will be mostly GIRLS"
Brush up on your maths, perhaps?
8.6% * 2568 = 221 A* girls.
6.0% * 14205 = 852 A* boys.
So (roughly) a 4:1 ratio of best-performing boys to girls.
Re: Quit news period!?
"And the IT angle for those is what, exactly?"
Since when has that stopped anyone on here?
I do rather hope they get hauled in front of a judge for contempt of court. News organizations typically want to ruin ordinary people's lives to sell newspapers, and this ruling might damage that ability.
Re: Reading the instructions = cheating??
"Tape to Tape copy from a wealthier friend = no instructions."
I had significant problems copying Spectrum games. You needed a good tape copier and good quality tapes to get all the tones right, I think. I never managed it consistently anyway...
Re: Rent Seekers
In what way does the regulation protect the public? How about this: all Uber drivers undergo the standard CRB background check (or local equivalent), the vehicles are inspected the same way as taxis, and then we are good. If I remember, Uber already does CRB checks on its drivers, and are taxi MOTs different to normal MOTs? If so, Uber requires their drivers to do that too. Any more public safety measures?
Re: The proper term is whistleblower
"Ask yourself one thing : if Snowden's name had been Snowdenskiya and he had fled from Moscow with such a collection of documents outlining Putin's secret organizations activities, would you still be throwing the book at him ? I don't think so."
No: Putin would be preparing the polonium sandwiches.
Re: In other news
"The only way you can have peace in the area is by kicking Israel in the nuts so hard it stops its constant humiliating attitude towards the gaza ghetto and west camps."
I presume this "area" is Gaza. Because I don't see much peace in the Middle East even when the countries aren't Israel. In fact, about half of the wars in the MIddle East seem to not involve Israel at all.
"You need to read more Feynman. If a theory / law / hypothesis doesn't fit correctly measured physical results then it doesn't matter how complete or satisfying that theory is, it's wrong."
I think you needed the emphasis on correctly measured, not on wrong. And the level of doubt increases as the law of physics that is violated becomes more fundamental. Conservation of momentum is a pretty fundamental law of physics, so the fact that some guy with a metal jar can violate it seems like it's a problem with the experiment, not with the law. Violate CoM a few more times, in verifiable and repeatable experiments (for example, this time they could pump out the air to see if it works without air currents, like the Crookes radiometer).
Read a more in-depth analysis of the experiment by John Baez here: https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4
Re: ... in contrast to Amazon's approach
"Probably toasting their victory with steaming cups of Macdonalds coffee."
Just had to correct this urban myth, spread by McDonalds themselves because they gagged the victim as part of the settlement. Look around on the Internet for the particular details of this. McDonalds served *boiling* coffee that hospitalized a woman, and she only sued for medical expenses..
Re: The UK Whatsits?
"Exactly who cares in the rest of the world?"
So things that affect only one country shouldn't be talked about? And this is a UK website, by the way.
Re: This was always kind of obvious, no?
"Riiiight... tell me again why we should do that? Got a court order?"
Yes, there is a court order. That's the point!
Re: Well I *was*..
"as far as I know the app sold 84 times at 99 Cents."
Good thing they didn't charge 50 cents for it, or they'd have another trademark infringement suit...
"The people who sold quick or sold short did so because they thought they had asymmetrical information, and they were in such a hurry to act that they didn't stop to check. They were trying to get an edge by acting before anybody else noticed. So, I agree that he should have been convicted, but I do not agree that he should be sued by people who lost out because of their own trigger happy behaviour."
Sharp downturns like that cause automatic systems on pension funds and investment accounts to activate to mitigate potential losses. Ironically risk aversion would crystallize those losses, so speculators might get away scot free but low-risk funds would get stuck with the bill.
Re: What losses?
"People who are in the market but are also stupid enough to have silly procedures, should loose money."
What about people who are too stupid to be able to spell 'lose'? Should they loose money?
"The only people who lost will be those who sold while the price was depressed."
OK, so it probably wasn't $300m. Let's say $50m. Is that any better? Can the people who lost money sue him personally for it? They can, but they cannot get much. He should be in jail.
"If it was accepted that his motivation was not market manipulation then really this was not the right conviction. Libel perhaps, but not market manipulation. It is a dangerous precedent since it could be uaed to prosecute protesters who successfully impact a corporation through their legitimate protests."
As long as the legitimate protest doesn't involving mocking up fraudulent press releases with lies about the business's health on it, they should be fine.
Re: Headline wrong?
"Those investors and speculators were happy enough investing in a high-risk company, in a high-risk market sector, in a type of business that will be deservedly history before too many more years go past. The very fact that they were spooked by a trivially simple little trick shows just how close to the edge that business is. By all means feel sympathetic to them if you wish, but don't overdo it: they went into a high-risk investment of their own free will, and the fact that they were willing to invest in one of the most harmful industries of all demonstrates that they (the investors & speculators) had no concern or care for other people - so why should we care too much about them?"
Let's go line by line, and go through the bullshit.
"Those investors and speculators were happy enough investing in a high-risk company, in a high-risk market sector"
It's only high risk because someone fraudulently attempted to manipulate its stock price. In this case, every company is high risk: send a press release saying you are calling in a business's loans and see what happens. It's fraud, he deserves the book thrown at him.
" in a type of business that will be deservedly history before too many more years go past."
Better not buy another computer. Where do you think metal comes from?
"The very fact that they were spooked by a trivially simple little trick shows just how close to the edge that business is."
As I said above, mock up a press release saying the SEC is investigating the directors of company X for fraud or X's banks are calling in their loans and watch what happens.
"By all means feel sympathetic to them if you wish, but don't overdo it: they went into a high-risk investment of their own free will, and the fact that they were willing to invest in one of the most harmful industries of all demonstrates that they (the investors & speculators) had no concern or care for other people - so why should we care too much about them?"
I hope all your savings were in the investment fund that got hosed by this.
Re: Both Google and Amazon vulnerable
"The biggest growth market is China, and through US Govt ineptitude over a long period, these companies are mostly excluded from it."
It's probably more to do with the Chinese government than the US government, to be fair.
Re: @John Smith 19
"DavCrav, if you have programmers that would do that, you have bigger problems that bugs that an outsider might find."
My point was, if we think that security researchers are just one slap in the face -- "free! T-shirt! Yay!" -- from becoming criminals, why are all programmers going to be pearly white?
Re: @John Smith 19
"Okay, $100K might be pushing it indeed. But the other end is equally ludicrous - t-shirt? Really?"
I think the t-shirt might actually be worse than nothing at all.
@John Smith 19
"If they didn't the first you'd find out about it would be when exploits appeared and started hitting your (or your customers) bank accounts."
Pay us or we'll steal from you/your customers? What is the difference between that an extorsion?
Don't get me wrong, I think bug bounty programmes are better than no bug bounty programmes, but $100k/bug is serious money, and will encourage criminals. Coder puts an obscure bug in code, friend flags it up, $50k each? Easy money. If you think that's unlikely, why do you think it's likely that if security researchers don't get paid big money for bugs they'll sell them to cybercriminals?
Edit: added a subject because I was obviously too moron to hit the reply button.
Re: If the EU want to censor the world
"Incidentally, why is that they expect Google to censor but not other search engines? Are the idiots that run the EU that pig ignorant of the fact that if Google is forced to not show a search world wide then it just means that people will start using other search engines and get to the same data that way."
Cannot tell if stupid or just trolling. FIRST LINE of the article:
"Google, Yahoo! and Bing have been grilled by the EU’s top data protection tzars."
Seriously, get a clue.
Re: Would you like - messy - sauce with your steak?
"If the A29 group are seriously considering data accessed within the EU is in-scope of the Data Protection legislation being used to back all this up ... Well what we need is nationalised databases (and given who's recently proposed that, we can probably forget about it)"
Google is processing the data of European citizens. Whether it does that in York or New York is irrelevant, if Google has a presence in Europe. Google can always pull out of the EU, if they feel that strongly about it.
"To be fair, if I'd spent close on 7 years training, I'd expect a decent salary."
Glad to hear you'll be supporting a doubling of academic salaries then. Eight years training here, and six years experience, and I could just afford to send a child to Eton, if I forwent eating and accommodation. And I'm comparatively well paid.
Really, Qualcomm? Whom did you forget to bribe?
Re: I think...
"You can't put your name on the post.
Either post outside of office hours or don't post."
Riiiight, John Smith. I'm sure that's your real name.
"Some comments, with apologies if DavCrav's comment was intended to be ironic, and I missed the Joke.
The heart of the "social contract" is that freedom was always inalienably theirs by right. It was stolen from them, along with their liberty and the fruits of their labor. Their children were sold for the profit of their owners.
We find this abhorrent. But for the vast majority of the time humans have lived on the planet, slavery has been accepted, often endorsed as "God's will." The reality is that the truths that many of us hold to be self-evident and cherish are not universally accepted and perilously fragile."
I cannot think of a time in history where a gruop of people are given a new right, and then compensated for not having that right in the past. When homosexuality was legalized, gays were not given compensation, nor when gay marriage was brought in. When the disenfranchisement of women was ended they were not compensated for being excluded from democracy.
Whether slavery is good or bad (hint: bad) it's entirely standard for no compensation to be given for things that were legal. Anyone talking about slavery reparations should also be talking about reparations to women and homosexuals, to name but a few groups.
Whether we like it or not (hint: we don't) slavery was a standard part of life for most of human history. At the time, freeing the slaves was a momentous decision, and I bet that every freed slave was ecstatic, and the first thing on their mind was not clamouring for compensation, but living their lives.
"Aw, poor Anglosphere.
Its inability to study other foreign languages like German or French or Italian makes it so dependent on an English-speaking press run by people who are unable to study other foreign languages like German or French or Italian.
So, you'll have a situation where a newspaper like The Guardin or The Telegraph will quote the New York Times about information about sentiments within the EU, which Britain is a member or, instead of Der Spiegel or Handelsblatt or Le Figaro or La Stampa.
IF the anglospher weren't so incapable of learning foreign languages, it would have noticed that the political situation that stopped things like ACTA and which brought rulings like the one against Google have grown stronger, not weaker after Snowden.
So, when Angela Merkel or Francois Holland or Renzi comes with the TAFTA treaty to their parliaments, it's not going to pass. And while Guardian and Telegraph will cover Nigel Farage's involuntary flatulence in great detail to find out how Things Are Done in Europe, they'll miss that the EP is likely to vote against this."
I've rarely read a comment on this website made up of so much bollocks as this. How many German people speak French, do you think? 15% according to the WIkipedia entry "Languages of Germany". And how many in the UK? 23% according to the Wikipedia entry "Languages of the UK". How does it feel to have a central plank of your pathetic argument pulled out as you were walking along it?
What you fail to notice is that it's only English that other large EU countries speak; they tend not to speak each others' languages. Also, we have enough people in the UK who can speak foreign languages to do the translation for us, thanks.
Also, racist much? English people are unable to learn foreign languages? About the same as if I said that the French were unable to drive properly or Germans had no sense of humour. Stereotypes and fluff.
"Notably, the (former) slaves were not compensated at all."
Apart from being given their freedom. Surely that counts as a win on their part, no?
- +Comment Trips to Mars may be OFF: The SUN has changed in a way we've NEVER SEEN
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for those too stupid to use email
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Is your home or office internet gateway one of '1.2 MILLION' wide open to hijacking?