3014 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
(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?
The average web page...
....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.
Memo to Nokia
If you want to continue operating with any credibility in the mobile market, avoid Redmond like the plague.
Ok, tnx, bye!
@sabroni mark 4
"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.
@sabroni mark 3
"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.
@sabroni mark 2
"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.
Here's a short list
"Herbal Medicine" (at least herbs can have active ingredients)*
---University of East London,
---University of Central Lancashire,
---University of Westminster,
---University of Lincoln,
"Homoeopathy" Hos BSc [or similar] (a good cure for dehydration)
---University of Central Lancashire,
---University of Westminster,
---University of Salford.
Do some searching, you'll find more. It's bloody depressing. We are turning into a nation or hairdressers, tax-avoiding-fat-cats/footballers (who pay crica 2-6% tax) and certified idiots. Now if you don't mind, I think a need a Camomile tea to soothe my nerves....
*And yes, I am perfectly aware we still get lots of drugs from herbs. These drugs are created by scientists, not blasted herbalists.
They are scientists....
...if they follow a scientific method. Hypothesis, replicable experimentation, data collection, peer review, publication, critical analysis etc.
If they do not, then they are nothing more than quacks, charlatans and deluded fools.
Herbs do contain active chemicals, but it takes an actual scientist to work out what they are, how they work and how they can be improved/attenuated as required.
The ASA should not be in the position of determining what a "scientist" is, they should defer to an actual bone fide scientific authority. The ASA is wrong - can one appeal against this?
And do not start me on the abuse of the word "engineer". I have a degree in engineering, but I am not an engineer (I do not work in that field nor am I a member of the relevant recognised body). Your heating "engineer" is not a chuffin' "engineer". They are a technician. In the same way a nurse is not a medical doctor. There is nothing wrong with being a technician or a nurse, they both perform vital jobs; but they are NOT engineers or medical doctors.
"This will involve two networked innovation centres, one in Shoreditch and the other at the Olympic Park."
And who, exactly, will work there? UK workers in UK companies paying UK taxes? Or multinationals using of off-shore skull-duggery to avoid paying?
I know it won't be UK workers as successive governments have under invested in the education of "hard" subjects, just the kind of thing you'd need to work in a high-tech, high-level "innovation centre".
Still, at least we'll have enough people with degrees in advanced hairdressing and applied sandwich making, eh?
So long as...
...tablets remain non-Windows and will thus drag standards-breaking MS over the barrel, so much the better. Lack of interoperability and proprietary standards (e.g. docx as implemented by MS, not the docx they declared as the ISO) hurts everyone.
When Project Harmony (plus anyone else who wants one) gets a TCK and the gob-shite suits get dropped, then we will see. Oracle is just like MS when MS MS says "Hmm, we love standards and openness" and then not fully detailing their own standards and threatening open source projects with patents unknown.
Until we see action, it's all just words; whilst the gums may be flapping in a new rhythm, the message has remained the same.
...pass a law demanding that companies hand-over crypto keys for local services. Or, that such keys must be handed over upon request and that failure to do so is (in itself) an offence.
That'll work, won't it?
Now at airports the could offer (for a fee) a sculpture of you in the nuddy after going through one of the scanners.
Can we get this on motorcycle helmets, please?
Nothing worse than going into/out of a tunnel and being almost blind for a few seconds, and even the "made for motorcyclists" sunglasses steam up something shocking.
For that money...
...I'd get a small-footprint PC, drop a Mthy front-end, XBMC or something on to it and plug it into the network. More functionality, less hassle, less confusion.
I don't understand what DLNA is supposed to be about. Just seems like yet another way to do something that has already been solved (e.g. use CIFS, or streaming). And (from posts above) have no idea if it will work until after you have bought all the kit.
...had not removed the "Run other OS" option (which was initially cynically added to get tax breaks) then they would not have this trouble. "Other OS" let people do amazing things with PS3s. Even MS have wised-up and stopped threatening everyone who hacked the Kinect.
Why is Sony not in court for breach of contract or something for removing this feature?
None of this is likely to save Hotz from serious jail time though.
...everything was IBM and they were the law. Then they got two big for their boots and a little whipper-snapper called Microsoft toppled them.
Microsoft became law and got so egotistical they thought they could tell the world to not use the Internet (well, almost). They have not yet fallen, but they are looking shaky; certainly Google has them bitch-slapped seven shades of sideways on t'internet with Apple drubbing them on phone/PMP/tablets.
But Google (and Facebook, eBay...) too shall fail and die, this is the nature of things. If the Government wants to get a slice of the pie, then they need to stop funding wasteful crap like the Commonwealth and Olympic Games and start funding things that make a difference (big science, education etc).
Hell, if we had a manufacturing industry left we could make money out of Google. But no, our entire economy is based around funding the bonuses for w...err...bankers.
Has he been watching...
..."Ghost in the Shell" or something?
...so the airline can ask for photo-id (or whatever) to check that you are the authorised flyer, the TSA can't do much (maybe check you have an actual boarding card or soemthing).
OK, thanks. Makes sense now.
Whilst I applaud the chap...
...does anyone else find this a bit odd?
"passengers have the right to fly without providing ID"
"in the 21st century, no-one would consider even diesel for high speed operations,"
Apart from the UK, which is why the lines are not all electrified
...a small SSD for the OS and apps (8gb is ample) and a small-ish HDD for swap and data (32gb is more than enough). Heck, this could probably be done in one combined unit.
Ultra-fast boot and response, room to store stuff without worrying about the NAND wearing out.
You can't run Windows in this config, but who wants that bloated turd on their netbook?
...you don't buy Israeli, American or Chinese (to pick just three) products. What do you buy then?
Does that extend to oil (and thus plastics)? Because just about every oil nation and oil company has dirty secrets. Then we have food and the likes of Sinar Mas, Nestle, Coca-Cola etc. Can't buy those.
Must be terrible at your work; everyone naked, cold, thirsty and hungry.
But you probably are not like that, so you do buy from women and child murdering regimes/companies (I note that men seem to be fair game; care to explain? Or do you perceive women to somehow be weaker and non-combative? How quaint.) so your pontificating is complete, self-congratulatory rot.
If you find the actions of Israel a problem (and let's face it, most people do) then there would be more mileage in creating dialogue rather than division; it's division that caused the mess in the first place (and you can thank the Brits for that).
...can compete with the Apple Tv2 on price, then they could be on to a winner.
An Apple TV2 costs £92. At that price-point why would I build my own? I'm just going to hack it anyway (hellooooooo XBMC).
For higher-end systems you are almost right, but it can often be cheaper to buy a pre-built system and simply buy the odd tweak. Depends on individual circumstances.
Either way, as I am time-poor, I am happy to pay someone else to build a system for me. Last time I checked, MS did not do hardware, so why am I paying them?
Have you read the reviews? I was keen on them but now, no way. Which is a same.
System 76, Frostbite etc; too expensive in the UK though.
I have an XP license...
...I'm using right now as it happens, got "South Park" on the TV via "Media Center". Anyhoo, it has been "value for money" for me. That's OK.
But now I want a lappy, smart phone, NAS and a few other things (life changes, y'know). As far as I can make out, all the F/OSS options are all big happy-pals and (under virtualisation) they seem to work well. But when trying to buy the kit. The MS tax would bankrupt me. Sending my money co Cupertino is (bizarrely) cheaper and that still means buying something I don't need (still, at least it is Unix based).
Go get a grip
I am well capable of building a PC, but my time is worth more. I am happy to pay a pro to build it for me (just like I paid the guy today to fit the carpets) but I will *NOT* pay for shit I do not want.
Example: I had two rooms carpeted, I was not forced to but special shows to walk on said carpets. PCs should be the same way. Unfortunately they are not.
...Lnx s lss bt hrt thn Wndws.
[I would use vowels, but the patent landscape is uncertain]
A simple tale...
...my SO was so hacked off with Windows that she was ready to blow an aneurysm. I had a few Linux kicking about and she liked those. but you can't buy them so she went Apple. In her words "It's not that ****ing sack of **** that is ****ing Windows. **** it with a ****ing ****er of a..." and so on. Even though I would have wiped an MS unit, she did not want £70-odd going to the Evil Empire. So Apple it was. Evil Empire #2!
Hear, hear. My hobbies revolve around the scientific appliance of violence to the human form. This I call "fun". Working with a computers in any shape or form is, no matter how amusing, still "work" just like any fight is still ugly and painful.
I like my computer*. I like my dishwasher. I do not have to spend hours securing my dishwasher from t'interwebs.
*My PC has a DVD with its name on it, now I just need the crimson head covering......
"Just don't buy that machine!"
And do what, live in the dark ages? Or get a degree in computer science so one can build their own from scratch? How about you get your head out of your arse and face the real world.
If I buy a Ford car, I get a Ford engine. Honda car? Honda engine. Opel? Some GM engine. And so on, but they all conform to the various standards (in terms of car and engine and ignoring certain cross-development agreements). Either way, they is competition in car engines.
If I buy Sony, HP, Dell, Toshiba or any other major brand I am forced to have MS Windows. A bit like buying a Ford and being forced to also buy an external combustion engine from Billy Bob's Steam Emporium. i.e. it is detrimental to the hardware and there is no competition.
There are better options (no really, there are) but the restrictive practices of the bully-boy stop them gaining traction. Of course, we are talking about a company that is too scared to implement their own "standards" consistently. Bugger them (hand and shrimp). If you are spec'ing equipment, don't ask how F/OSS (or whomever) will match MS, ask MS how they will match (in technical detail) open standards.
All cars should drive on the same roads. At the moment 95% are only allowed access as they run MS tyres that only work on MS roads. Explains all the crashes I guess.
One was good. Tweo was meh. Three was crap. Stop now, you have lost the plot. Literally.
Matrix one wasn't about the F/X (mostly stolen from "Ghost in the Shell" etc) it was about the realising of self over the network (err....also kinda nicked from "Ghost in the Shell"). Two was about...bollocks, and three about the money.
Really, leave this kind of movie to the Japanese who know how the hell to tell this kind of story. Is that racist? Maybe. But at least the Japanese are not afraid to do a story without lowering it to the lowest common denominator.
Just look at what the Yanks did to "Taxi", "Nikita", "Das Experiment" or any other movie/show of recent merit. Some Yanks at least know this, they made a show parodying their own crapitude. We like movies *because* they are difficult. The increasing Americanisation of film (e.g. the recent "Ponyo") is to the detriment of the art.
The consumer is no longer challenged, which should be the bloody point. Each film should be trying in their own way to raise the bar, but no. Crap prevails, a bit like American beer. Take "Dead Gentleman Productions". Utter shit I grant you, but watch their movies and you cannot fail to be entertaining (with d20 chance of amusement). They are at least trying, and actually appear to understand irony (a precious commodity State-side)
I love Anime, SciFi, Action, blah-de-blah; I caught "Casablanca" over Chrimbo and was blown away. Why are films like this not made any more? Pond-dwelling, accountant scum; that's why. Too afraid or real art and the possibility of failure. And if we do not reach for the stars...
My cookies bite the dust unless I trust the site, and I trust very few sites. I give El Reg elbow room, but then I like to live on the edge. Yeah! Go me!
Google have cookies?
Meex Privoxy and may various blockers, bitches.
All tracking should be opt-in only. Unfortunately the advertising companies can raise bigger bribes than you or me, so their laws get enacted (what, you thought this was a democracy?), This is why you get the twenty check boxes written different ways at the bottom of sign-up pages; half must be "false" to avoid stalking, half must be "true" to avoid stalking, Legal maybe, but hardly in the spirit.
but if you were to post on line where the CEO of those privacy invading companies were to be, you would make Assange look like the tooth-fairy.
Roll on the revolution. We need "marketeers" in the same way we need cancer. They are a by-product of a system run amok.
...CookieCuller then. Or "run once" virtual images, "VirtualBox" is free for personal use (and pretty sweet too).
I block the shit out of them because they piss me off, even here. Stop with the flashing nonsense, yeah? Have links to products obvious without being jarring (e.g. underline in text colour). Did you know that El Reg has often mentioned something in text that has made me think "Awesome" but provided no link? So I had to go to a search engine and El Reg lost on some revenue.
If I am aware of your advertising, then your advertising is *FAIL*. If I see a name in an article I should be able to click on that name and go (in a new tab, please) to a site relevant to that company and that product (not a pissing landing page). Your adverts should be transparent to me. Because, let''s face it, "DoubleClick" et al are going to get striped at source.
I would like to support you (e.g. I like to look of Apple TV2), make my life easy and you can have my money.
Content and context management is my game. Be amazed at my search engine optimisations. Call 0898-hire-a-tard. Have your needs fulfilled today!
"Our legal drones did a thing and we encountered a PR shit-storm. So we have turned 180 degrees and are now pretending that this opposite direction is what we meant to do all along. Nothing to see here."
...YouView care how you get the data to your local system? Data is data. Suck it down as you see fit, your local client (whatever that may be) just has to be smart enough to buffer far enough ahead. I call "FUD" from Virgin.
They may be worried about people storing the content and want it all DRM'd to heck. Well, I have news for them. By-passing DRM of that nature is a piece of piss and all it does is irritate the hell out of people who would otherwise behave responsibly and push them towards illegal avenues.
No, that's not what they said at all.
"Google never artificially [favours] our own services in our organic web search results, and we perform extensive user testing to ensure that search results are ranked in a way that provides users with the most useful answer."
That's what they said.
So, there is not artificial favouring. What about natural favouring? What if the sites are coded in just such a way that the algorithms love them?
"most useful answers"? As determined by whom? What if Google considers it's own services most useful?
I am not saying that is what they are doing, but the PR speak is not without the ambiguities.
Of course, one can't ignore that this appears to be a report from the FUD-masters MS.
Google promotes Goole?
MS says that F/OSS systems cost more than MS ones?
Yahoo ranks Yahoo higher?
Business analyst discovers water is wet?
Is it really any surprise that Google promote their own wares? I mean, is it? All companies do this, it should come as no surprise to anyone. Maybe Google will claim that their sites are in some way "better" and so deserve higher ranks. "Better" meaning "easing for our algorithms to deal with".
That shouldn't be a stunner either. Their engineers know the algorithms, so it's a simple matter of massaging the site to match the algorithm. It amounts to the same thing, but does allow Google to state that their algorithms (not sites) are not biased.
Now if you will excuse me, I must investigate ursine religious demographics and arboreal papal defecation.
I think we are splitting hairs. By "centralised" I mean one mechanism provided by the hosting OS. That may back onto a main network-server of some kind, or separate system but all the applications get updates from the same system which checks at the same time. Not each application running it's own checks and employing its own security (if any).
So, IMHO, the repos are "centralised" But that's all so much semantics.
Yes, if you update systems at different times you may hit problems. In that case you want some admin-type system to make all the related updates at once. There are a plethora of systems to do this, but they can only be as good as the data that feeds them.
By having some common repo-type system (apt, yum, whatever) it makes this much easier and one does not need a bazillion plug-ins or client scripts to click pop-ups just to get system updated.
As for version clashes...well yes that is ball-ache. It's been ball-ache since the dawn of IT and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. One option is to let a third party pack and test the various updates before rolling them out to you (say Red Hat or Canonical). But this means you may have to wait a while as things get tested, which may or may not be ideal.
At least you can access the source code and, possible, patch it yourself if it comes to that. Not ideal either I grant you, but it is at least another option.
"Who's going to control that central update?"
The user (or admin). Quite easily too. They can add a thing (lets call it ""a repository") that contains signed-code from a trusted source. Once this "thing" is added (either to the PC itself or to some network-central doofer by an admin) the PC's OS just checks periodically to see if there is anything new.
Repository 1? Nup
Repository 2? Nup
Repository 3? Oh look, updates for this that and the other.
It can the auto-install, inform user or whatever.
No "one ring to bind them all", the power remains with the end-user to use (or not) the third-party repositories. All the OS provides is the mechanism for this to happen. It's a shame no one in computing has thought of such a thing. A real shame. If only there was some kind of OS platform that did such a feat right out of the box. That would be all of the awesomes. :-)
Especially as the competitor OSs do this out of the box. And, more often than not, they don't need to reboot once the updates are done. Nice.
Depends on the theme. OOTB I would say (bar wallpaper) that the 10.10 theme is orange. Ornage buttons, orange highlights etc. The only thing purple is the wallpaper.
So it's all down to personal perception I guess.
- iPad? More like iFAD: Now we know why Apple ran off to IBM
- Apple orders huge MOUNTAIN of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're building ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Black Hat anti-Tor talk smashed by lawyers' wrecking ball