456 posts • joined 13 Jan 2008
To be fair to Microsoft...
...they're trying to fight this in court.
Where are Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc.?
Re: And Google's and Apple's
The point is of course that it isn't really about drugs or terrorism or other things they can easily ask European authorities for and it never was. It's about blanket surveillance of everyone and everything all the time specifically for all the things they cannot get warrants or cooperation for because they aren't legal or moral.
resistance is futile
The public outcry and indignation of allies and domestic US companies co-opted into spying on their users for Uncle Sam has resulted in precisely nothing being done.
The US and UK are still busy at it, they're even rubber-stamping new laws with opposition support. They're talking about improving oversight and so on, but it's just fluff. They're going to keep spying on everyone just as before regardless.
But now thanks to Snowden, we know this. If we want to be protected, we're going to have to do it ourselves. There is probably no hope to make everyone NSA/GCHQ proof, but widespread use of encryption and other technologies could realistically make blanket surveillance impractical and uneconomic.
I recall the first time I saw XP, with the bright blue windows and taskbar, the default tellytubbyland desktop wallpaper and the first thing I did was go back to classic mode.
But now people make out it's some kind of design classic. It was a very good operating system, especially compared to what went before. But it looked awful.
Win 8 actually works quite well, despite the toytown interface.
Re: It's all very wonderful
It's impressive yes, but I do wonder about their priorities.
Does anyone really care these days about the entertainment systems on aircraft? Everyone has a phone or a tablet. A USB port for power would be far more useful and a lot cheaper to install and maintain - everyone wins.
I'd much rather they spent the money on making the leg room a little better. I am 6ft, but I frequently find my knees crammed up against the seat in front. Even half an inch would make a difference, and forget the fancy 3d movies.
Re: Conspicuous consumption at it's worst
Sorry, I lived in Dubai for 8 years, and if you think this kind of thing is spending money wisely, rather than in the rulers' own self interest, you're deluded.
There is nothing but worthless desert there, there is nothing sustainable beyond when the oil runs out. The locals have had oil money for 40 years, and they still cannot educate and instil a work ethic in their kids so they can fly their own airliners or engineer their own oil production. Why bother, when you can just pay foreigners to do these things? This is not Singapore or HK or China, countries that value education, hard work and doing things themselves, despite the great wealth they've come by. It's a lottery win, that they're busy frittering away and having a good time with while pretending their business people.
there is a difference
If the climate in the Amazon region was different a few thousand years ago so it didn't support jungle, then most likely other areas of the world which now do not support jungle were wetter and previously did. North Africa springs to mind, quite possibly other parts of South America which are presently drier plains and possibly even desert.
This is quite different to human beings tearing down jungle from the areas that do presently support it.
I think the Reg doesn't help its credibility as a source of technical and scientific coverage by letting Lewis constantly write these twisted articles. Scouring technical journals for any nugget of information that sticks out from the overwhelming evidence, disregarding any qualifications scientists put in and then presenting it as some kind of growing body of evidence against climate change makes the Reg look a bit bonkers,
If they really wanted to push electric cars, I think it would have been better to do a closed wheel formula and make the cars much less draggy. Open wheel racing is a bit of an anachronism really, it only persists in F1 because the rules require it. F1 cars have a horrendous drag coefficient, wheels, struts, etc. and complex wings to give downforce because of the regulations on diffusers and shaped floors.
Open-wheel racing is a throwback to the days before aerodynamics really took over, where open wheel cars were lighter as a result of having less bodywork.
It seems the aim has been to make the cars look like F1 cars, whereas they really could have made this a far more relevant series by focusing on design aspects that will make cars more efficient in every respect.
James Allen's F1 blog had some more info on Formula E.
Apparently, they're going to have fake noise to make the cars go 'vroom vroom' as well as music. And there will be a social media element where you tweet for your favourite driver and the guy with most votes gets an extra power-up.
You might think I am joking, but sadly I am not.
Electric car racing is a nice idea, unfortunately they seem to have hired some silicon roundabouters to brainstorm making it appeal to 'da kidz'. And as a result, it will end up as cringeworthy shite.
Re: they're a spy agency
Do you lock the door of your house? Pull your curtains at night? What do you do in there that you feel the need to hide?
Does this mark you as a legitimate target for security services?
I have a better idea
As an experienced coder I have no experience of high-paid, tax-payer funded non-jobs which involve loitering with intent around minor politicians and attending all manner of pointless but well-catered junkets.
So I wonder if the government would care to put me in charge of a well-funded new initiative called the 'Year of Talentless Hangers On", in which we seek to ensure that all youngsters are given the opportunity to learn how to bullshit their way through interviews about political issues without ever giving a straight answer, while quoting meaningless statistics which are invariably wrong.
Re: OneDrive is close to useless due to their 2gb file limit
That doesn't affect me, but the upload/download rate of 10KB/s is a deal breaker. And that, despite it being baked into Windows 8.1.
And so after a couple of weeks, I gave up and just freed up a bit more space in my Dropbox on the basis that actually works at transfer rates better than a mid 90s dial up modem.
front loaded deals
Never trust a front-loaded deal, where you pay in advance for something that will be available at no extra cost for years into he future. They're invariably bait and switch. Once they've got your cash, there is no incentive for them to continue to provide whatever ongoing service it is. Or they'll just run out of funds and stop the service. Either way, you lose.
The Tesla free for life charging another case in point. If you spend 10s of 1000s on a car with the promise of free charging 'for life' you're asking for trouble.
No, it's not because they're looking for an easy life, though they'd love you to think that.
It's because this was never about terrorists, it's about surveilling the general public, as they're the people who pose the biggest threat to the rich and the powerful who're running things.
Terrorists don't create FB groups to discuss their plans, but plenty of anti-government political groups, environmentalists, occupy wall street, etc. - they do. That is the target. People who are not breaking the law, and so don't think they have any reason not to post their views and actions on social media.
'All these generate new IP numbers which so far show no sign of giving out, despite the billions in use.'
Aside from the very obvious fact that various new TLDs do not 'generate new IP numbers', the suggestion that they 'show no sign of giving out, despite the billions in use' does rather appear to be a reference to the exhaustion of IPv4 numbers which I am sure a man of Fry's limited technical understanding has undoubtedly picked up on yet completely misunderstood. His obvious ignorance in the first statement certainly lends weight to the interpretation the Reg gave to the second.
Those words invariably ring alarm bells for me.
He is front loading the cost of the product on the basis that usage (i.e. fuelling it) will be free to the user 'forever'. But we all know that 'forever' really means 'for as long as we offer the service' which in the case of a fairly radical model like this may be considerably earlier than the heat death of the universe, or even considerably earlier than when the wheels finally drop off the car. In fact, it might quite likely be well before the new car smell has worn off.
Even if they end up being hugely successful, the charging points start to regularly get full up and they start charging newer customers for each charge, they'll easily get shot of the early adopter freeloaders by subtly changing the charging specs to make v2 incompatible, or having 'premium' points for those who pay while the ones who're 'free forever' fight over a single broken and unmaintained charger at the other end of the country or whatever. Personally, I'd sooner pay per charge and know that there is a continued incentive for Tesla to continue to serve me, than pay upfront and know that it's all dead cost to them from that point onwards.
Re: Humans > robots?
It's the same in orbit too. Manned space programs are extremely expensive, the only justification for sending humans into space seems to be to find what effects spaceflight and zero g has on humans.
People talk about the scientific benefits of research into vaccines and new alloys produced in zero g. But big pharma companies make billions in profit, spend much of it on research and yet they're not buying seats on Russian rockets at 20 million bucks a go. The astronauts are doing all that 'research' because they're on a space station and need to do something there that looks useful. It would be far cheaper to send robots up to mix a few vaccines and so on, we only use people for this because they're there.
Much as I confess I am fascinated by spaceflight, the technology, the moon landings, and would be thoroughly excited to see people land on Mars, it's going to cost a shitload of money and there really are better things to spend it on. We don't put switchboard operators in orbit to run communications satellites, we don't really need humans in orbit to grow kidney beans or hatch chicken eggs either.
follow the money
Seems pretty obvious this is more about creating a revenue stream than providing some kind of useful feature.
They're a bit over-reliant on Google fees at present and need to diversify. Sad fact of life is that people won't pay for a browser, so unless you've got deep pockets like Google and Microsoft, you've gotta raise money somehow. I wonder how many FF users bitching about this have ever donated?
I'd sooner have a microlight, gyrocopter or powered paraglider if I wanted to actually fly. 45 MPH isn't really very fast compared to a motorbike I am happy to basically stick to the ground.
It doesn't even look that much fun.
Re: Prior art??
Actually their rules specifically require photos be 'taken against a plain cream or light grey background'
An outrageous and shabby ploy to avoid paying the appropriate fees to Amazon no doubt.
the clue is in the name
You'd have thought people might realise the consequences and security involved when sharing files in a folder called 'public'. This 'bug' does not expose files elsewhere in your dropbox, only those you choose to share publicly.
Dropbox would be better off explaining to people what 'public' means, and to make clear that documents shared in this way are, well... public.
You cannot prevent URLs leaking. Things like the Alexa toolbar and other tools which many users might have installed will pass every URL you visit to their parent service. I think Chrome probably does this to Google too.
This assumes that those who're not tech savvy will see what happens to that second URL and realize they're on a fake site. I very much doubt that.
Anything short of a big popup warning 'This site may be a fake' won't be understood.
The problem with dumbing down, hiding the full URL and so on is that over time, the average web user is going to become further and further removed from the actual workings of the web - even the basics of what a URL is and how to enter it directly into a browser by typing. The URL bar will go completely next, as users just follow links from Google and don't need to type or see the raw URL. I suspect this is really where Google is going with this - even more control over how users get to their destinations.
I lived there for 8 years. 50% of the time I turned up, was straight through immigration. The other 50% I had an hour's wait. And I had a residence visa.
And no, having small airport queues doesn't make it a better place, or even more efficient than any European country. Government bureaucracy is the only thing that creates jobs for locals, who don't have the skills or the work ethic required for proper jobs. It'll normally take them a couple of months to shuffle a completely unnecessary but vital piece of paperwork around an office for the required stamps of the various people who got their jobs due to 'wasta' and only turn up for a couple of hours per day, if they feel like it. And everything you do requires copies of passport and visa in triplicate, even though they have a compulsory national ID computer system for which they take eye scans and prints of every finger and even your palms.
I find it hard to believe that the Reg can get decent footage of a home made playmobile space plane, and yet these space-x fly boys with hundreds of millions in porky government cash can't get a single vid of their rocket.
I wonder if the LOHAN team would consider suing the US govt for some of those lucrative subsidies to major US aerospace companies masquerading as defence contracts?
pointless until they sort their bandwidth
I have win 8.1 on my laptop, and since the latest update forced onedrive on me, I thought i'd move some stuff from my dropbox and make use of the free space of both.
I moved a bunch of development webs and I was getting an upload speed to onedrive of about 10kB/s. It took days to sync everything. I though maybe it was a temporary issue, gave it a week, but it seems this is just the way it is. The support forums are filled with people complaining about the same, and MS support drones going through the motions of asking people for various logs to help them analyse the problem.
I got fed up, moved everything back to dropbox, and it all synced in about 30 minutes. I've since used the group policy to remove onedrive.
I actually quite like Win 8.1 now (I know...) but onedrive is completely useless. I want stuff to sync as near as instantly as possible. Imagine how bad the speed would be if Win 8.1 was actually popular and there were even more people forced into using it.
Re: This sort of thing doesn't happen
If you do want IE working (for whatever reason) try this - go to search 'internet options'. You get the default options that are available in IE but that you probably cannot access. Then go to the advanced tab, and hit the 'reset' button.
I had same issue, IE would just load but everything blank or disabled. This fixed it for me.
Re: i like crisps "From the country that gave you"...
My wife happens to be from Brazil, and often tells me how corrupt it is.
Then we were watching the news a few weeks ago, and the Royal Mail sale was in the headlines. So, the government decides to sell the RM, and goes to some banks to get a valuation. And they pull one out of their backsides, which the government accepts. They also negotiate a huge tranche of the shares at that price, with a gentlemen's agreement not to sell them immediately. And then the shares go on sale and promptly double in price. And the banks sell immediately.
And then of course, David Cameron, Vince Cable and all the others responsible for gifting the banks billions will one day lose their jobs, and then promptly walk into absurdly highly paid consultancy jobs (half hour a week, few million a year) with the banks whose pockets they filled.
And my wife's response? If this was Brazil, they'd NEVER get away with that.
Our politicians are just far better at making deceit and criminality look like incompetence.
the whole financial 'industry' is a fallacy
The fallacy is that the financial markets create any wealth at all. They don't. It's amazing that they've managed to convince the public that men shouting down telephones in a room full of other men (and it normally is men) is some kind of creative or productive enterprise that in some way creates usable wealth.
The financial markets redistribute wealth, while taking a huge chunk of the wealth being transferred for themselves. Generations of government has manipulated the economy to allow them to do this, the quid pro quo being high-paid city consultancy jobs (aka pay-offs) once you get dumped from public office.
I recall visiting the Soviet Union in its dying days, and being told that the economy failed and because it failed to allocate resources properly. This was undoubtedly true; the arguments to justify this revolved around the poor salaries doctors and scientists got compared to factory workers or coal miners.
Yet western capitalism is doing the same, because the pervasive money of the super rich banks is being used to influence politics such that bankers are allowed to gamble, dodge tax with impunity, and receive public funds to bail them out if they lose their gambles. And the absurd salaries reflect the fact that scientists and engineers (who do create wealth) are valued less than those who device complex artificial schemes to obtain even more wealth out of an ever diminishing pie.
It's true that a free market is an efficient way to allocate resources. However, western capitalism has long since stopped being a free market when banks were bailed out, using tax payer's money to pay the gambling debts they built up. Profits privatized, losses nationalized.
Re: More expensive option
I felt exactly the same when I started looking at putting mobile support into an ecommerce application.
But if you use a framework like bootstrap or foundation (I prefer the latter), it's really a lot simpler than you think, at least if your CMS is already using some kind of page templates already. After doing it responsive, I reckon it took about a 5th of the time that creating a completely separate mobile site would take. Because all we really had to do was modify the templates; the content pages largely fell into place. All the features we considered non-essential and were planning to drop from the mobile version just fell into place, so we ended up with a fully-featured mobile support instead of a really cut-back second rate version.
The work is predominantly just modifying the template. And if you're using a good framework, a lot of the cross platform support is handled for you anyway.
Honestly, take a look at bootstrap or foundation. It will save you a ton of time, and the end result will be much, much better.
wot no responsive
It's 2014, I'd have thought anyone doing mobile support is going to be doing responsive now? It's surely better for so many reasons:
- better support for tablets and other devices, not just two different fixed layouts
- same URL for article on mobile/tablet/desktop - pretty much all browsers allow you to sync bookmarks between devices, and users posting links in forums and social media works much better if you don't have different mobile URLs
- cuts down on duplicate code (as same code serves all devices), mobile site can be fully-featured instead of a second rate cut down neutered version that is often the case these days
There is the issue that some old browsers (IE7/8) don't do so well with responsive, Foundation doesn't support IE8 or below. But we've found it simple to just put a server side detection on old devices and serve them back a non responsive template. It's not ideal, but then if you're on IE8, nothing is really and half the internet already won't work for you. So the reg looking a bit naff is going to be the least of your worries. And who on earth reading the reg is going to do so on IE8 or below?
Re: living a lie
But you still don't know what is in Chaz's letters to ministers. And you probably never will. So you're really just guessing what him and the Queen think. Not that it would matter if you did know, since you don't get to choose your head of state anyway in the UK.
living a lie
All those years we thought we were the good guys, we had freedom, rights to privacy, government of the people with proper oversight, and so on... it was a lie, and it has been for some time.
The most powerful dictatorship is the one in which the majority of people are convinced that it isn't really a dictatorship at all, by having a few crumbs such as 'free and fair' elections thrown at them every few years to give the illusion of choice. Surely the fact it makes no difference what government gets in should have been ringing the alarm bells, but apparently not.
In the UK, it emerged that Prince Charles actually has special powers, largely secret, to lobby and veto policies by the democratically elected government. The Guardian has been fighting unsuccessfully to reveal the scale of use of these too:
Yet this quite huge constitutional issue has got hardly any coverage outside of the Guardian.
Here, look at these six pages of photos of some nice looking baby on holiday in New Zealand, please don't ask what his grandad has been up to in the UK and the compliant 'journos' will all get gongs in a few years while those at the Guardian will get added to no-fly lists or shaken down every time they even transit a 'friendly' country.
The rich and powerful are fully in control in the US too of course:
They're all at it... more power at the top, but don't let the people know about it and there is little they can do about it because most simply don't know enough to care.
It's good to know that the British government has such excellent stewardship of our tax pounds.
Imagine what these politicians could do if the yoke of EU oppression was removed and their hands were untied?
You can wipe off any 'profits' they expected to get from my Android purchases, I would not have purchased iDevices instead, it would have been a pure linux device instead
Not even that, Apple hasn't sued other Android vendors, they're just fixated on Samsung because it happens to have been successful. So you'd probably have bought an Android device from someone else who hasn't been sued by Apple, including Google itself which has of course shifted a lot of self-branded hardware.
One bug doesn't negate the fact that security via obscurity is a bad thing.
You're perhaps deliberately implying that closed-source is security through obscurity. This isn't the case. Many closed source software includes all manner of security measures which are published and explained in great detail, even if the source code itself isn't. Closed source is only security through obscurity if there are little or no security measures other than simply hiding how things work and hoping nobody figures it out. Very little major software operates on these lines in reality, though quite a lot used to.
This Heartbleed issue would tend to confirm that there is no silver bullet - code can be open source, and yet serious issues could still lurk in widely deployed code for years.
As someone who has worked on both closed source and open source projects, the level of complacency in the FOSS community is a real concern to me. I hope this issue is a wake up call and that people start to question their assumptions. You simply cannot assume that just because code has been out there in public view and widely deployed for years means it's safe... how many people have *really* looked at it?
Re: MICRO$~1 net income ..
How much of this do MICRO$~1 spend on testing the software?
More than any Linux vendor spent testing OpenSSL?
Re: And this is why you cannot trust open source
The fact that world renowned security experts such as Bruce Schneier disagree with you and state that "security by obscurity is no security at all," leads me to trust their opinion, rather than that of some anonymous internet commenter
You're misinterpreting Bruce Schneier here to bolster your case. He did not say that closed source is not secure. What he said is relying on obscurity for security purposes is not secure. There is a difference - a very big difference.
As it happens, Schneier confirmed after the Snowden revelations that he primarily uses Windows himself....
really cannot see what the fuss is about
Mozilla is not some government department, it's a corporation.
The CEO is free to support whatever political causes he likes.
Anyone else is free to demand he be fired if they don't like that.
The CEO is entitled to resign if he wants to. And the board are entitled to fire him if they want to.
And all the people whining about freedom can organize a boycott to have him restored, if they want to.
Re: Oh come on.
Apart from the fact that Microsoft has not sought to ban Samsung or other Android devices in the courts, and most manufacturers have eventually agreed patent fees with Microsoft without any litigation.
Is it really for someone else to finish this feature by providing a decent user interface for it? Think of the kicking Microsoft gets for Windows 8, even though there are several third party apps to add the start menu back. The reason is that it is not someone else's job to fix something that should simply be in there from the start.
better than nothing
The biggest problem at present with government surveillance is not that they can spy on terrorists or selected people that they decide to focus on - it is that they can pretty much spy on everyone simultaneously. And this is what they're doing.
And they can do this while the data is en route (even with SSL, it seems) or stored on cloud servers (where the big corps all conspire or are forced to grant them access), so there is no risk of discovery by the surveilled.
If this makes it harder to do that, increases the resources required such that they can no longer do blanket surveillance of everyone all the time, then it is a positive step. Of course there are still ways around this, trojans and backdoors. But those have a risk of discovery, especially if they attempt to roll them out to everyone.
keeping us safe
They record the entire world's facebook and gmail, watch lovers doing rude things on yahoo chat and even monitor your angry birds activity. And they have spooks running round WoW looking for 'terrists' too.
But an airliner full of 250 people can vanish and 12 days later still be missing.
It's good to see they have their priorities straight after 911.
Security by obscurity?
Re: I'm not happy unless I'm complaining.
And Alex Salmond too, just in case they're bluffing.
Re: ISIS Security
Yes, but mainly because the UK's cult of personality will be forced into worshipping a jug-eared twat who talks to plants.
Does anyone remember the hype over that? As a small business owner, I recall going on a 2 day course financed by the government in 99 (er.. 1999) to basically tell me to check all my gadgets for compliance statements on the internet.
Fast forward 15 years to this debacle. I still have customers contacting me with various issues, sending me screenshots of their Win XP machines running IE6. I point out to them they better get on and upgrade to something else, some seem unaware, others are but insist they only use this machine for occasional stuff so it's not a big deal if it gets burned. I get the impression that most just don't take the threat seriously, perhaps in part due to memories of the failed hype over y2k.
I suspect this is going to be one of the big stories of 2014.
I imagine that a night down the pub with Reg commentards would be like a night out with UKIP, only with more beards.
Some things are better kept online.
Re: only in the warped reality field of the Register...
If your stockbroker tries to tell you a company increasing market share from 50% to 55% is faster growing than one increasing its market share from 2% to 6%, I would suggest you get a new stockbroker.
Each % point of market share translates to a number of PCs. Let's keep it simple and say the market is 100 million machines (of course the market is considerably bigger, but you get the point).
So 29.23 million machines up to 29.53 million machines vs 3.95 million to 4.1 million
Which is faster growing now that it is no longer a ratio of a ratio?
If you actually believe the answer to this question changes depending on whether you quote the original number of machines or a % of the total, then that really is maths abuse.
only in the warped reality field of the Register...
... could a rise from 29.23% to 29.53% be considered 'faster growing' than 3.95% to 4.1%.
Re: History says otherwise
Apple got a way back partly because Jobs had a clear picture of the niche they needed to target. But also because the rise of the web and email in the late 90s as the major use for most PCs. This effectively diluted the monopoly effect of Windows, because you could choose another OS and still view/create emails and web pages that everyone else could read regardless.
- NASA boffin: RIDDLE of odd BULGE FOUND on MOON is SOLVED
- Pic Mars rover 2020: Oxygen generation and 6 more amazing experiments
- Microsoft's Euro cloud darkens: US FEDS can dig into foreign servers
- Plug and PREY: Hackers reprogram USB drives to silently infect PCs
- Boffins spot weirder quantum capers as neutrons take the high road, spin takes the low