Posts by Adair 1057 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
YMMV - Firefox works fine for me, so my anecdotal evidence neutralises yours.
Meanwhile there are very good philosophical, ethical, and practical reasons for retaining a web browser that is not beholden to the self-serving machinations and asshattery of global corporates.
Because a 'market' implies a forum for trade, i.e. a benefit passing between people, a benefit that can then be traded on in other contacts of kind/money.
Where something is simply 'given away' that isn't happening, the item/app/... could just as easily be sitting in a warehouse, or rotting. There is no 'market', because, by definition, there is no tradeable value being exchanged. If there were I could go next door and get a better deal, or haggle over the price, but as the price is zero none of that applies - there is no market.
Yeah, me leaving my old sofa, TV, and random object d'art outside my front door for anyone to take away does not constitute a 'market', even if Joe, over the road, and Mary, next door, are doing the same.
Likewise, me releasing my treasured app for random public download, in exchange for nothing, does not constitute a 'market' in any sensible definition of the term. Nor, does software released by corporate entities in exchange for nothing alter the nonsense of calling such access a 'market'.
Failing any realistic ability to prosecute responsible individuals, it would seem fair to assert 'collective responsibility' to all those 'responsible' executives above a certain grade and fine them (say up to 50% of their assets, or more) in proportion to their level of responsibility in the PO. They may have had nothing directly to do with the fsck-up and consequent persecution, but that is irrelevant in the context of 'institutional' culture and responsibility: you all benefit when things go well, so you should all bear the pain when the institution has behaved badly.
'Lloyds of London' used to operate on this principle: Lloyds 'names' benefited royally when their ships came in, and could literally lose everything, including the shirts off their backs, if the cargo was lost and they had to pay what was owing. That all stopped when the Govt. decided to take notice of the whining that ensued after some very shabby treatment of 'names' by scummy agents operating under Lloyds name back in the eighties (I think it was).
Whatever the rights and wrongs in that situation, there is something to be said for allowing people to actually personally take the hit when the organization that rewards them royally for warming a particular seat causes needless mayhem to other people's lives.
... come up with a distro labelled 'Windows', with a compatibility layer sandwiched in, and finally leave behind the wreckage of the last twenty years.
No one need know; payment for upgrades/subscriptions can continue as normal.
On second thoughts, bin all the above—the shambling zombie is much more entertaining.
Yeah, the bandwagon is both wide and long on this one—plenty of room for all the chancers, PR-droids, and money grubbers to climb onboard to boost their lies and honeytraps.
Like most (ahem) tools, generative 'AI' has it's uses, and within a limited envelope of 'usefulness' can be very useful indeed. Outside that envelope: utter unreliable drivel.
Of course, it'll take a while, and a few deaths and other tragedies, before we all settle down and let the tool have its sensible place.
Which came first: the RAM or the code?
Systemd belongs to a generation who see lots of RAM (and memory in general) as space to be filled—however pointlessly.
Why write ten lines of code when there's room for a thousand, and the pay to go with it?
Then, of course, there's that priestly caste to protect that special voodoo needed to keep the whole shambling monster upright and moving. Mind you, the 'priestly caste' schtick is as old as coding.
O boy, an objective 'fact' is true regardless of whether you or I believe it, and regardless of who communicates it, e.g. the planets of this solar system orbit the 'Sun'.
Likewise, a vaccine that demonstrably significantly reduces the percentage of a national population from suffering life ending symptoms, without significantly raising the probability of serious side-effects, is one worth receiving—if only for the sake of the well being of the population at large, regardless of whether you or I happen to think it's a 'good idea' or a 'conspiracy confected by the capitalist alien lizard overlords'. Unless of course we are self-regarding/self-pitying prats who don't give a shit about anyone else's well being, so long as we are free to spout our nonsense without consequence to ourselves.
'How many of those 300 ICE fires take out an entire carpark and roast 1500 cars ?'
Except that was a Range Rover (or similar ICE vehicle), which does rather spoil the FUD over EVs being catastrophically more dangerous than ICE vehicles. As already stated, your cuddly ICE car is far more likely to incinerate your home than the nasty EV.
Interesting how 'religion' is used as though somehow that word communicates a generic truth to which anything so labelled must adhere, i.e. that it's all rubbish.
Imagine applying the same logic to 'politicians' or 'lawyers, or even 'computer coders' - oh, sorry, we do that already.
Very convenient for anyone who just doesn't want to have their 'position' questioned, most of all by themselves.
I wonder what would constitute 'evidence' in this particular context, given that for those who trust in God's active presence and those who do not, plus those who are firmly on the fence, are all equally convinced of their respective positions, which if 'agency' is a thing is fair enough.
We are all free to take responsibility for our choices in this matter, along with all sharing in the consequences of our choices.
'“Freely available” does not mean available for £0 ie. Free. See GPL.'
The thing is, whether you pay money for the 'product', or not, under the GPL the 'code' must be made available on the same basis that it is received. You are not obliged to make it available in turn, but if you do it must be on the same terms, under the GPL, in which you received it, i.e. 'freely available'—in the sense of 'freedom', not 'money'.
As I said, 'Open Source' does not equal 'Some Kind Of Business Model'. It is the antithesis of that mindset and purpose, albeit that it can exist within a 'business model', so long as that model enables it.
The 'FLOSS' philosophy doesn't owe anyone a living.
Someone else who seems to be under the impression that 'Open Source'='Some Kind Of Business Model'.
'FLOSS' is exactly about NOT being 'Some Kind Of Business Model', so the code is released from bindings, except that it be 'freely available to be used and shared'.
If you release your code on that basis you are wilfully releasing yourself from any temptation to whine about not being paid.
Except, if you knowingly sign a contract between yourself and the 'supplier' where you 'agree' not to re-sell your 'child's toy' within a year, on pain of payment of an amount of money, then you are contractually bound, regardless of what everyone else usually does/doesn't do.
All you can do then is pay lots more money to 'lawyers' to comb through the contract to see if there is a loop-hole, or if the contract is somehow legally void through 'illegal' drafting.
You are definitely (wilfully?) missing the point. It's about trust: we can't trust what gets shoved down our computer's throat (let alone our own) in the name of 'advertising'.
Where there is no trust people, very sensibly, erect defenses. The problem is not defending against wilful, and often malicious, 'attacks' on privacy. agency, and sanity. The problem is the 'attacks'.
If you enjoy having your computer and brain served wanton and active garbage (with an occasional side-dish of criminality), without any comeback on your part except the 'Off Switch' then that's your choice. It's not mine.
become the worldwide arbiter and enforcer of who does what, when, where, and how in the global IT world?
I'm sure they have some say locally, and are entitled to express an opinion globally, but if 'Corporation X', based in the United Republic of Erewhon, decides to release an app that can be installed anywhere someone has unrestricted access to the internet what do they care about what the UK Govt. thinks or says?
Unless they have assets in the UK 'Corporation X' probably doesn't give a shit what the UK Govt. thinks or says.
It's just more political posturing from a political party in the late stages of senescence and facing an immanent election.
Just remember RIPA for an example of the 'trustworthyness' of politicians' promises.
They will say whatever they need to say (they may even believe it); and then they will do whatever they want to do.
Despite the best efforts of the justice system and some excellent NGO activists, this country still has an underlying feudal understanding of the relationship between the 'government' and the 'people'—given half a chance the government act as owners rather than servants.
It all goes back to the entrenched concentration of money, power, and entitlement.
Actually, most 'proper' e-bikes have perfectly good batteries. It's the cheap 'knock-off' shite (mostly from China's sweatshops) that are allowed to be imported here and sold to unsuspecting, but very price conscious ('Oooh, something for hardly any money') customers, that are the problem.
'The EU seems to love totalitarianism, and lusts after power, as witnessed over the past couple of years.'
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, however ignorant, prejudiced, self-serving, or just plain wrong it may be. As am I.
I wonder what an ideal piece of legislation would look like—that genuinely protects end-users from exploitation and abuse, whilst also upholding the interests of FOSS and commercial entities?
Alternatively, we could all sit on our hands and let an unregulated 'market' do its thing. To the max.
'Google's reason for existence is to show you fewer, higher value, well-targeted ads' - that may be their aim (I think the aim is actually to make money, and lots of it, but that's just me), but are you seriously suggesting that is what happens in reality?
What happens is that I get spammed by crap ads that Google's 'algorithms' decide are relevant to me - oh how I laugh. I don't actually, a. because it isn't funny, and b. because I manage to almost entirely do without Google's so called 'services' (to themselves).
Strangely enough a perfectly useful engagement online is quite possible without involving Google, it just requires a small amount of awareness, will, and action to make it happen. And if you think this isn't true please offer a selection of Google apps/services you think I cannot get by without online.
No, clearly I'm not saying that at all - thankfully we're not all a bunch of snowflakes, at least not all together at the same time.
Whatever the failings there were, and are, there are plenty of people who do their best for those around them, and try to take responsibility for their actions and choices, etc.
As a society, however, while we have gained much, at least materially, I would argue it has definitely come at a cost - to our resilience, purpose and hope, both collectively and individually. Not that our ancestors had things all sussed out, by any means. In spite of all our tech and knowledge there's no evidence we human beings today are any wiser.
Which highlights the fact that jumping up and down about 'having to wear masks' and a whole bunch of other idiocies/mistakes, etc. is actually beside the point—and scapegoating is a waste of time, and an abdication of responsibility.
What you are describing isn't really a problem of misapplied information, so much as the psycho-social consequences of a society ill-equipped to cope with traumatic events.
Past generations were generally far more familiar with the reality of 'things going wrong' in life, and also more generally shared an agreed moral/spiritual framework and tool-box for coping with the randomness and frequency of death, illness, mayhem and tragedy.
Current generations are not so well equipped, we are typically more insulated from the randomness of life events, especially the negative ones, and when those 'negative events' break across a whole society all at once the fragility of some people's ability to cope constructively and healthily is laid bare. We expect 'others' to come to our rescue, we expect 'others' to have the 'answers'; and when they don't we quickly turn on them and blame them for our troubles.
The 'Government' and other agencies have much to think about and learn from, but heaping blame on 'the government' or 'the health services', or any other convenient scapegoat, does not help our society get to grips with the reality of it's inherent weaknesses and fragility, or with the harsher realities of life that may still rise up to sweep us away at any moment.
So, you're basically saying that we actually knew what we didn't know, both before and during the pandemic, and that people deliberately set out to make things worse?
Of course mistakes were made, both because of ignorance and because of stupidity - that's life. At the same time people were making the best decisions they could on the basis of limited to zero accurate data, and in some instances on the basis of incorrect data - that is also life.
What are you actually trying to argue, or are you simply enjoying having an irresponsible whine at other people's expense, as though you would have done so much better?
I think you are missing the point of how things go when we are dealing with a 'pandemic' situation, i.e. the principle is 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'.
That inevitably means that there will likely be proportion of people for whom that principle is a source of harm - physical and psychological.
Alongside that is the fact that mistakes will be made - this is reality, not some fantasy world where everything has to be 'perfect' for everyone, all the time.
So, all the hand-wringing and whining about how unfair/useless it was to ask everyone to wear a mask when out in public, and all the other stuff that some people trundle out to demonstrate how appallingly they were treated by the system, is, mostly, self-pitying wank.
Are they seriously suggesting they would have done a much better job of organizing everything in the circumstances. Heaven knows, there is certainly plenty of scope for improvement, and hopefully (I won't hold my breath) some solid lessons have been learnt, even if not by our ever confident politicians, but too many other folk also seem to make it their business to spout utter bullshit simply to give themselves the appearance of 'being in control'.
And then, or course, 'twenty-twenty hindsight' is always a thing.
Perhaps next time we'll all be better off if 'those in charge' simply say, "It's everyone for themselves, and if you're too stupid or too weak to survive, well then, let natural selection run its course—the nation will be stronger when you're gone. See you on the other side. Cheers".
OTOH, when what we say is bullshit, that if taken seriously is likely to lead people into making misguided decisions that will unnecessarily cause themselves/others harm, it deserves to be called out in no uncertain terms; and if people then still choose to trust the bullshit then it's on them.
Suppressing information, regardless of truthfulness, is always likely to be a losing game, as many shaman du jour have discovered.
especially their lamentable tendency to, on rare occasions self-immolate - Not my field, but I strongly suspect that any chemical matrix holding a high energy density is going to have the same 'lamentable tendency' once integrity is broken and the chain reaction starts. Unless, of course, ways can be found to surround each cell/group of cells in some kind of inhibitor gunge* that stops the chain reaction.
* a technical term.
Long form writing is best done in a text editor (including markdown editors) or some member of the LaTeX family. 'Word Processors' such as Office et al are actually pretty abysmal tools for the job of actually just getting words down in some sensible order, i.e. writing is about 'content' NOT 'formatting'.
The formatting can be done later, via DTP software, and preferably by someone who actually knows how to put a printed book together. This whole business of producing content in 'Word' is bollocks and a massive time sinking distraction from the author's actual job.
I've recently been transferring a fifty year old typescript (literally an academic text that only exists as a comb-bound book, facsimile printed from the original typewriter pages, with hand drawn tables and graphs) into a digital searchable and reformatted printable document. The author died years ago, but this piece of research is seminal in it's field and needs to be preserved.
I am not a professional book publisher, and I have to say that I would have given up the task trying to manage via Word/LO/etc. Instead LaTeX has been my friend. The styles preamble is a sight to behold, but it's all set out clearly and the document, with all it's various tables and graphs, and multiple sections and many layered sub-sections, is handled flawlessly, over and over again as it is adjusted.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
