You can defeat...
...those scanners with a photocopier and some spit. Even the "good" ones.
I kid you not.
3055 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
...those scanners with a photocopier and some spit. Even the "good" ones.
I kid you not.
Really? Really, really?
1) Insert encrypted stick
2) Fire up TrueCrypt (or whatever)
3) Select encrypted disc/file and mount/open it
4) Bash in the passphrase/challenge-response
5) Get some work done.
If that really is beyond the employee, then they are not fit to fulfil their role and should either be given remedial training or be demoted. If they had some genuine problem (e.g. dodgy hardware) then they should been reported it and got a replacement.
For breaching the rules like this, they should face summary dismissal. If they were unaware of the rules, dismiss their direct line manager. Repeat until you reach the first person who (suddenly) gives a shit.
I have the right to do what I like *TO* my personal property. I don't have the right to do what I like *WITH* my personal property. I can use a hammer to bash in nails or pull them out (legal, so long as I am not causing criminal damage). I can't legally use that same hammer to kill someone. There is a subtle difference - one of these acts harms another/causes public outrage; one does not.
So with a PS3, I should be able to run Linux (or set it on fire, or whatever) but I shouldn't be allowed to use it to cheat (say, by running some kind of homebrew hack). The former is nails, the latter public outrage.
If the small print contains terms that are unenforceable (or should be), then those terms can safely be ignored. A term that states "We [Sony] have the right to remove any feature or impose new restriction we so choose, for any reason we so choose at any point in the future" (I paraphrase) would be one such term IMH[non-lawyer]O.
Perhaps "OtherOS" can be used for naughty things like cheating/pirating. But then Sony should NOT have included in the first place just to get a tax break.
As for "rights", I have the right to do whatever I like to my personal property. I can go out, buy a PS3 and set it on fire if I want. It's mine. If, however, I only have a license/rental agreement I do not have such "rights" except those granted to me by the actual owner. Perhaps Sony should consider leasing PS3s instead? Then they can contain whatever rights they want. Once they *SELL* it, however, they rescind all such rights. IMHO.
Ah...cool. One of the few things I had heard about Wayland was it dropping network transparency. "No one uses it, why support it?" I thought that sounded odd.
Just as the world seems to be going back to thin-clients (or VDI or whatever you want to call it), the Linux world seems poised to drop network transparency and force people to use fat-clients (I'm looking at you Ubuntu, possibly Fedora too, and the whole Wayland thing).
...works where it works. If it doesn't use something else.
When the free software is working for you, why rip it out and buy something else instead?
MS Office drives me scatty at times too.
There are things I can do on a Linux desktop (Gnome, since you ask) that make my life much easier (multiple desktops, always on top, roll up...). The pain of going from XP->Win7 has been much greater for me than learning how to use Linux (Win7 still does my box in).
Well, perhaps if people insisted that school turn out IT literate students rather than drones who can click MS buttons there would be less of an issue. And you also ignore the cost of retraiing from XP and then re-training for Win7. XP skills are not (IME) directly applicable to Win7.
And when it comes to expense, over what time period are you thinking of? And what ancillary costs (e.g. anti-virus)? How can a system that was rated (I paraphrase) "Pretty good with a few niggles" in 2009 suddenly become "A steaming pile of turds, please save use Mr. Ballmer"?
I suggest you read the rules - they are available on-line.
In a nutshell; if you have a tuner (e.g. tv, vcr, pvr, tv-card...) that is capable of receiving *live* TV broadcasts, then you must pay - even if such devices are not connected.
There are, however, a few wrinkles:
---If you "knobble" said device (e.g. break aerial sockets) you do not need to pay.
---If you watch lots and lots of DVDs and can prove that, you can avoid paying even if the tuners can easily be made active (there is precedence for this).
If you have no tuners and only watch catch-up (no live TV) then there is no need to pay either.
They can set whatever rules they like and change them whenever they like.
This is why it is moronic to invest in a proprietary system.
If people had demanded a PS3 that could play on the open interwebs (like some PC games do, with people/companies hosting their own servers [mileage may vary etc etc]) then they would not have given Sony such total control over the hardware.
Perhaps companies that want Sony's level of control should not sell consoles, instead go for a rental model? "Get a PS3, only £50 a year! [5 years minimum contract, you must buy 2 full-price games a year]".
...they just made a hack after all. It is the arse-wipes who use the hack to cheat get my ire.
And it's Sony's network, so they can ban who they like when they like for any reason they like.
Within the EU? No. Remember, the Euro zone is a free-trade market (or it should be). Once it is imported into one EU state, it can be sold all over the EU. The only real issues exist over "grey imports", and that is mostly caused by companies over-charging in the EU simply because they can (helped by the EU blocking said grey imports).
And what costs do exist should not be any more than having to import into the USA and deal with the vagaries of the laws/taxes in the different states.
If there are significant costs to trading in the EU, then that just shows what a sham the EU is and the fact it is not working in the interest of the people. There should not be such vast differences in prices for products like this that are mass-manufactured to a standard design.
If the device was made in the USA, I could understand the price disparity. As it is coming from China, the disparity does not make any sense.
The kit is imported to the USA, having been assembled in China. So import tariffs etc exist in the USA. Also, they don't have to just import to the UK, they have the whole EU to choose from so any extra costs in getting the devices here (which would be marginal coming from China) are spread out over the whole EU.
Fair point about the sales tax - I had forgotten about that.
Whilst 100% parity is never going to happen (due to currency fluctuations etc) and I accept that, this disrepancy is way beyond the pale (especially considering that many of the services are blocked outside the USA).
Price in the USA: $199.00
Price in the UK: £179.98
What should the price in the UK be? Given current exchange rates, around £125. So why does D-Link think it can charge a 44% premium in the UK when a lot of the features won't even work over here?
I would try to suggest an alternative, say the Roku XDS 2100X, but there the rip-off is even more disgusting. US$99.99 vs UK$149.99 (equivalent would be UK£62). A 200% mark-up for no reason whatsoever!
Can El Reg do an article on why companies think it is OK to try and gouge the pockets of the UK consumer? At these prices it would be cheaper for me to personally import the items from the USA. Which is just bloody stupid.
"The sales tax is added on at the end of the purchase and directly forwarded to the customer. In the case of online, catalog or mail order purchases where the distributer is based outside of the state, then no sales tax is collected."
Precisiely. The shop-owner gets screwed over as it costs X% more to buy from than that to buy from the webtailer, beause the webtailer bleats that it is "too hard" to work out the tax (which is could well be if every state, town, count and dog kennel can raise a local tax).
Because the USA tax system is so bass-ackwards, webtailers claim it is "too hard" to deal with taxes and get away without them. Thus under-cutting and screwing the people who actually live in the particular state in question.
That about right?
Fat bloody chance....
"We have seen thing called a 'competitor product' and we fear it greatly. Rather than compete on merit and let the free market decide, we prefer to compete in closed more communists system. For although we may base ourselves in the land of the free, the on thing that terrifies us is a competior on an equal footing."
...a Firefox and Ubuntu user I have to say that IE9 looks like the first "proper" browser to come from loins Redmond. I just wonder if this forms part of the "Embrace" vanguard.
So this header (once set) says "Please don't follow me, m'kay?" and we're supposed to think that the ad-parasites will respect it? Will they buggery. It'll just push to a higher echelon of target "Prestige, Privacy Aware" or something.
For privacy to work it has to be flipped around.
It must be under the total control of the user (not under the control of those who could profit by abusing it).
It must be on by default.
Anything else is simply broken.
I have always owned Nokia phones - but I will cease to be their customer if they only ship MS. I do not want that Redmond crap on my handset thank you. Same probably goes for my partner as well.
It's been nice knowing you Nokia, but your days are now numbered.
...it was (sort of) a puff piece then?
To ignore *nix and the fact that it has been doing exactly this for decades is short-sighted IMHO. I will agree that there is not always a *nix analogue for a Windows app, but if custom apps are being written/provided (or an acceptable analogue exists), then the ability of X-Server to blast them over the network to *very* thin clients cannot be ignored.
I will agree totally that this is not the answer in every case, but then neither is a desktop running Windows to merely fake being a dumb terminal.
I look forward to your reports (in the interest of balance) of alternative to the MS paradigm and then the pros and cons of each. :)
[Props for having the balls to reply too]
...isn't option 2 what *nix has been doing for decades?
Isn't having an OS (and related technologies) that is built from the ground-up the whole *nix paradigm?
How did you manage to write this whole article without mentioning that Windows is still trying to play catch-up in the multi-user environment and to have a hope of getting it work properly one still requires pretty beefy clients and third-arty software (e.g. Citrix).
Hell, drop the *nix back-end properly virutalised into a data centre and call it all "Cloud". Now you're computing like it's 1979 baby.
I guess a RoboCop statues would be at least one reason to visit that industrial graveyard.
Hey, maybe they could erect statues to all sorts of movie characters and re-build their economy on film-tourism and selling replica[nts]?
Just a thought.
Run your own net nanny.
Don't know how to run your own net nanny? Learn!
You teach them how to cross the road, so teach them to be safe online.
Do not abidicate YOUR responisibilities to YOUR kids to the state.
YOUR kids, YOUR responsibility.
And if the kid is so bright....
1) Why does he need to increase his "word bank"
2) I would assert that long-reading would do a better job
3) What makes her think he is not already perfectly aware of the word "shit"?
...that's the end of Dell's Android tablets then. MS will simply not allow Dell to ship non-Windows units (not without swingeing penalties at any rate).
IMHO even bringing up the dialog is a step too far.
Another chink in the penguin's armour? Maybe not. If someone has physcial access, all bets are off. Really. And whilst I realise that users/admin will have had to have been pretty stupid to let this exploit work but let's face it, people *ARE* stupid (and I include myself). So there is only one answer - kill any form of autorun dead. Now.
The most *ANY* OS should do is mount the device and indicate, by some means, how the user can access it. That is all. No launch, no dialog, no guessing from content what is to be done, no offering to run a program, no bullshit. Just mount the fecker and be done with it.
"This device contains music, do you want to open it in RhythmBox?"
No. No I do chuffin' well not. It has videos, documents, pictures, encypted files and all sorts. Why not offer me an application for every media type on the drive, you stupid desktop.
Actually, here. Open this *thump*
Really? Really really? Sweet!
Shame I don't have £400 to spunk on printer though,,,
"Nobody cared about OtherOS and Linux when it was there"
Really? Ever heard of the United States Air-Force (to name just one entity)? They cared rather loudly.
The iPlayer add-on is working again in XBMC (I am using it on Linux and an original xBox).
"it's the law that I have to pay them"
No, you don't. Not always and there's even precedent for not having to pay when you have a working tuner (but that was a very edge-case scenario).
Other than that, I agree with your sentiments. It's a shame that one has to use a third party system (e.g. XBMC) if one wants to watch iPlayer on Linux (although it does work quite well, even on my aging lappy and original xBox).
Maybe that will change when they release a Droid app. Which, really, they should have done first but I guess the iPad gets them more PR. I can't wait to see the complaints from all the Yanks about how their BBC app doesn't work. :o)
Whilst the BBC acknowledges that Android has a position with the sphere of the mobile application user experience, the vision of the BBC does not synergise with the multi-faceted plane of operations that exists within the Android universe.
As a leader in beyond-blue-sky rolls-outs and co-laterisation of dynamic consumption methodologies, the iOS framework is a much better partner for delivering ad hoc, viewer determined entertainment within the scope of the personal media utility system.
Or something like that.
"Computing's turned from tech male dominated to Hollywood pink."
May I just say "Alan Turing" and then "Now shut up"?
Nice bit of partial editing. That page talks about "priorities". So it could be read that the various Linux releases are pretty good and that the releases mentioned are lagging behind.
...going to stop the US patent office from publishing these stupid, stupid patents?
...if they really wanted him they would just come and take him. Then torture the correct answer out of him. You think our MPs would stand up to their masters?
...like hell that that thing does not run Windows.
Am I missing something? Take a big ship (pref. nuclear powered). Fit some muckle dishes. Sail it out to sea. Scan the heavens. Repeat until you (and you allies) have coverage.
"So if I want that picture, I can't say no to the other features."
Hear, hear! What I want, basically, is a 37" monitor optimised for distance viewing.
Do I want Freeview? No, I have tuner cards/set-top boxes for that.
Do I want multiple HDMI? Not really, I want to pump everything through one box if I can.
Do I want USB? No, I plan to have a media server for that. Acting as a hub is useful though.
Ethernet? Well, if DLNA actually worked I might be interested, but as it doesn't (unless you get a 'magic' combination of devices) then sod it; I'll pump it all through my media server.
Do I want a PC in my TV? Crap no. How the hell am I supposed to patch/secure that bugger? I'd need another PC as a gate-keeper and if I have that, it can be a front-end. See all of the above.
Can I get one of these simple TVs? Can I hell. Each manufacturer wants to lock you into their own walled garden, which might allow the accountants and MBA-dingbats to create their own little fiefdoms, but it stifles innovation and restricts the free market. The companies could take their money/energy and invest in other companies providing the services to all. Imagine Sony making a profit out of Panasonic TV owners - what a larf!
Some example projects/companies; XBMC - pretty bloody good really. UI needs a bit of polish, or maybe that's just me.
MythTV - awesome. Maybe they'd like a few tech authors and some tuner schematics.
Netflix - I hear this is good, but I don't know at the anti-competition license restrictions prevent them from operating over here.
Hulu - see above. Although a VPN/proxy solves both issues - and only costs a few quid a month.
iPlayer - seriously; ITV? Channel4? Give up. Your offerings are vomit (I often find it easier to get your programs from 'illegal' sources). Join with the BBC and help build the platform. the BBC can keep their bit ad free, you can do what the chuff you like (probably screw it up....)
Apple - yes, I know. But admit it, the Apple TV2 isn't half-bad.
Boxee - all they need is someone to explain "currency conversion" and allow their services to work outside the USA.
But first...can I please just buy a dumb TV? I've got a lovely Dell branded monitor here (it's probably a ViewSonic/LG/Something) it's a USB hub, has multiple format inputs, does audio pass-through and P-I-P. That's it. Doesn't try to do anything else. Could you just super-size it, please?
(I am so going to get flamed for this)
If one is blasting one's personal information out to the world unencrypted and for all to hear, then one can't complain when some third party listens to it. Google did nothing wrong - the data was in the clear.
The analogy with the car is nonsensical, Google stole nothing. Hopefully this will act as a wake-up call for people to switch their SSID off, switch to WPA-2 and use a gobble-de-gook password. And, to come back to the car thing; if one doesn't secure one's vehicles, then one might thind that they have no insurance cover - ever heard of "negligence"?
"Facebook et al...can't reveal your information if you don't sign up to their services.... Google have previously released their entire list of searches..."
Can you see your total logical disconnect? Don chuffin' use Google if that's how you feel (or use blockers/deceivers e.g. TrackMeNot, CustomizeGoogle, NoScipt, CookieCuller, Scroogle, TOR...). So it's Google's fault that you choose to use Google?
"Google is a general purpose tool and ubiquitous, it isn't a specific "social network"."
WTF? You do know that FB tries to stalk one around the net if one is retarded enough to use FB?
Gawds I must sound like a Google fanboy. Eww. But that doesn't change the facts.
1) Secure your networks people, anyone could be listening (you could even do your own PEN testing...)
2) Don't do business with people you do not trust and then bitch about it
At least three copies, on at least two media types, at least one off-site.
Flickr counts as his one off-site. Where were his other two back-ups?
A couple of USB drives (or a NAS) would have done.
If his pictures were that important, he should have taken the trouble to work out how to keep them safe.
I always considered Flickr a viewing gallery - not a back-up location. Maybe I'm just weird.
...IIRC "Top Gear" seem to insult everyone equally regardless of race, colour of creed. At some point everyone gets a drubbing from the oiks.
Isn't that equality?
....is 1.3mb? Is it? I show El Reg at around 260kb, YouTube around 500kb and b3ta waddles in at around 1.5mb. And 1.3mb is the *average*?
Even if that were true, your browser does not download the entire page every time (unless you force it), it only downloads the changes. So after the first 1.3mb spurt into your cache, the next updates will be a few kb here and there, making 100kb a significant overhead.
Anyway, the average appears to be nearer 320kb (http://code.google.com/speed/articles/web-metrics.html) and probably around the 500kb mark (http://techattitude.com/internet/average-webpage-size-increased-five-folds-since-2003/). So that ad size increase of 60kb just bloated your page size by about 10=>20%. Nice.
I think that Mr. McDonald is full of a metric-fuck-tonne of crap.
Run something like Privoxy to kill ads at source. And if that is too much hassle, use NoScript, Flashblock and AdBlock to kill them one the page. If they had not made their ads so annoying, I would not feel compelled to block them. They only have themselves to blame.
What kind of advertising works? Getting the product right. I don't recall ever seeing an advert for Edimax, but their cards were reported to work well. I plugged one it, it worked perfectly. Then Edimax added offical support for Linux. I will now go to Edimax first when I need network trickery. Why? Ronseal principle. No bullshit, no bling, just get the effin' job done.
If you want to continue operating with any credibility in the mobile market, avoid Redmond like the plague.
Ok, tnx, bye!
"You're not better than me because you have a method."
As a person? No. A scientist is just as fallible as any other primate. But the hypotheses that fall out of applying the scientific method rigorously *are* better than those achieve by other means (e.g. appeal to authority/faith).
As to your link. Well, where shall we begin? How about there (original paper)
Here's the original paper: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Fulltext/2010/09000/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal.5.aspx
There was NO CONTROL group! Why is that important? Well it would allow people to see if there was some other, unknown factor at play. Maybe the farm up river stopped dumping crap into the drinking water - who knows? Certainly not the study as they have no control group.
It was NOT A DOUBLE-BLIND. This is also vital. Go read about the "placebo effect", it is more powerful than you realise. Also read up on "selection bias".
There were also only 24 subjects and they were self-selected. My gast is now so flabbered I hardly know what to do. Maybe these 24 were getting better already? This is why selection needs to be random (and with controls, and double-blinded).
I need go no further. It fails the scientific process big-time, it is not science IMHO (the Southern Medial Journal has a...err...certain reputation). I do not agree with the conclusions. I will agree that "something happened" but there is no way to determine from this report what that "something" was. "Noodley appendages" come to mind.
"But intolerance is intolerance."
Why is intolerance bad?
Should I tolerate a fool? Should I tolerate crime? Should I tolerate violence against my person? Should tolerate the undermining of our education system and ability to think critically? The answer is "No", I should not."
"And if you have believe in what you're typing, put your name to it!"
I do not require belief, I have the evidence of proof.
"I can't possibly be wrong, I have my process!""
Ah ha! Now we get to the crux of your lack of understanding. It *is* possible to be wrong. That is the whole bloody point of the scientific process! The idea is to prove current ideas wrong so we can get new and better ones. And that goodness for that!
Did you know Charles Darwin was wrong? Newton was wrong? Galileo was wrong? And so on. All wrong. And by "wrong" I mean that some bright spark found an area where their ideas did not quite match the experimental/empirical evidence and came up with a better one (Neo-Darwinism, Relativity and so forth).
The current thinking requires all previous though to (in some way) be wrong. And our current thinking is also wrong (we just haven't quite figured out where yet). Wrong is good.
And if a scientist wants to hold on to ideas that are known to be wrong, what do we call them? Unemployed.
"in what way is scientific fundamentalism as bad as religious fundamentalism?"
I shall repeat - it is not possible to be a fundamentalist scientist. When presented with evidence (i,e. repeatable experiments and testable hypotheses etc) that show the current thinking is lacking/wrong, a [good] scientist *MUST* change their mind and follow the new hypothesis. This continues until some other scientist shows that the new theory is also flawed in some way and comes up with a better one.
"It's designed to belittle people's belief and to make something sound more ridiculous."
Yes, exactly. "Belief". It is not a testable hypothesis, it is not science, it is not valid. That's it. End of discussion. There is no more. It is actually that simple.
"Try researching whether prayer is effective in helping ill people. Yes, you'll find a lot of investigations that show it's ineffectual but there's a similar number indicating significant effects."
To the best of my knowledge, the number of trials showing "significant effect" were not proper double-blinds, and small in number. If you have 10,000 instances of something telling you "X=1", one instance saying "X=2" does not make "X=2"! It's a statistical aberration and it is something scientists have to be careful about. Prayer might make people feel better (which may have beneficial effects, look-up "placebo") but that's it. Oh, by the way, the Fortean Times is not exactly a reputable journal.
"And man up and get an id you anonymous pussy..."
Oh, so "sabroni" is you real name is it? or at least your Open ID? Thought not. And cease with the ad hominems. If the argument is solid, then the argument is solid; no matter who or what comes up with it.
"The closed mind of a scientific fundamentalist"
It is not possible to be a scientist and be closed-minded (well, not possible to be a good one). Now I suggest you go away and think again, you clearly have no idea about which you speak.