196 posts • joined Wednesday 26th March 2008 14:00 GMT
Re: Wait until China outlaws the stuff
"Bitcoin is fine, but the choke points are where you convert it into cash. Block those, and you get rid of the ecosystem."
I'm not sure it would be that easy. How do you stop a UK citizen making an online purchase/sale in another country where it is perfectly legal transaction? And Bitcoin is readily changeable to and from other virtual currencies (eg the ones used in MMO computer games). It would be a very tall order.
Going after large transactions with anti money laundering/proceeds of crime legislation perhaps. But criminals with large amounts of money can be a resourceful lot.
Re: No property rights
There will need to be an incentive to be the first mover. If its cheaper to wait for someone else to make the initial move and then do what they have proved to work, then thats what everyone will do.
Some sort of property-type rights are the obvious solution, same as it is with intellectual property. Random example pulled from my arse: say you want to encourage people to prospect asteroids. You grant a 30 year period of exclusivity for mining prooved and published mineral deposits on asteroids, which can then be sold to mining companies or used by the organisation itself. Perhaps with the stipulation that non-exploited deposits can be licenced by anyone on some kind of RAND terms.
The details will obviously be different, but something that looks a lot like property rights is the obvious solution. Though maybe it is a good thing that no rights exist at present, since that means a new system can be drafted from scratch and tailored to this new situation.
Re: No property rights
"So can anyone explain why this would be a bad thing?"
No one would invest in working it out in the first place.
Re: … disk-makers' claims for longevity
One year on a Seagate Barracuda? That sounds like an OEM drive - one intended to be sold to system builders, who intend to handle their customer's warranty themselves. The consumer warranty on a Seagate Barracuda is 3 years I think, I'm positive it is 2 years minimum.
If you put the serial number into Seagate's warranty website it should tell you what sort of warranty it has.
Would this article really have been better if she'd tried to generalise to the point where it applied to everyone.
"For a man/woman/indeterminate who is working/serving in the military/dealing with being severely handicapped while balancing working long hours/being shot at/not being able to move his/her/its legs along with raising children/breeding prizewinng goldfish/feeding their heroine addiction, you can get over stressed (unless of course you thrive on stress, then maybe you don't have enough stress).. where was I?"
Seems more reasonable to me that she wrote about what she knew.
You can get the OWC drives from a UK supplier. Not exactly cheap, but not as pricey as buying a new machine either:
"Why are you called One-man-bucket?"
"...In my tribe we're traditionally named after the first thing my mother sees when she looks out of the tepee after the birth. It's short for one-man-pouring-a-bucket-of-water-over-two-dogs."
"That's pretty unfortunate."
"It's not too bad. It was my twin brother you had to feel sorry for. She looked out ten seconds before me to give him his name."
"don't tell me, let me guess. Two-dogs-fighting?"
"Two-dogs-fighting? Two-dogs-fighting? Wow, he would have given his right arm to be called Two-dogs-fighting."
Re: Unintended Consequences
Re: The one way this could work properly
"The reason that there have not been charges is because of the way Swedish law works."
As the people going on about the lack of charges know very well, given how throughly the UK courts went into the issue.
You really don't help your own case by making misrepresentations of this sort people. You've got a good case, given recent events, that there is a lot of stuff going on that shouldn't. Stick to the truth, it is considerably more convincing.
Re: It's on the bbc.
Front page of the Telegraph to - near the bottom, but it appears to be the top Technology story. Google News finds several other mainstream UK sites carrying it, along with tech sites. While that doesn't say how prominent it is, I really don't see any reason to think its being deliberately buried in the UK press.
Re: I don't get this
I can understand using hacked websites to store/share/sell the material. What I don't get is: "Typically, someone visiting a normal adult porn website is redirected to, say, a file directory listing in a furniture shop's online home, which has been compromised and filled with images of terrible abuse."
Why do that? It would seem logical they would want to keep knowledge of the compromised server to themselves, not broadcast it to people who will report it.
Re: Welcome to the real world, kid.
I guess people understood that I wasn't swearing at you. I did describe your opinion as bollocks, I'll admit, but that was more being succinct than anything else. Any other description would have been considerably more wordy, and probably no less insulting for omitting the obscenity. Say "utterly wrong, and indicative of an either an inability to understand the issue, a deep lack of knowledge of it, or latent sexism on your part".
You are arguing that men and women get the same amount of crap online. This is just plain wrong. There is a whole level of unpleasantness which purely flows from some men to women. If you don't understand this then i can tell you, as I said, from experience of being mistaken for a women on XBox Live, you have no fucking idea (swearing in this case is for emphasis). Try it sometime. Considering how sensitive you seem to be, I do not think you would like it at all.
Re: Lower your expectations
You're missing the point. It's very easy to be oblivious to it, if you are a man who does not personally harass women. Apart from a few oddities we have equality now right? Anyone who says differently is just a symptom of political correctness gone mad. Thing is that's crap - any woman who is even slightly promenant is going to attract a whole range of shit online which simply doesn't happen to men
This is what will improve over time - the misogyny - as the process of leaving it behind gradually continues. All the truisms about anonymity causing people to act like arseholes will remain, so there will still be arseholes on the internet. But there will be fewer who specifically attack women in the way that happens now.
Re: Lower your expectations
It will never be pleasant, but things can and will be improved. The issue regarding the abuse women get online is not just because its online and everyone gets abuse, its so bad because there is still a deep well of misogyny in most if not all cultures.
This has improved, and will improve further. Women publicly standing up to this shit when it happens to them, and other people weighing in and making it clear that it is not acceptable, is one of the ways that this will be improved.
Re: Welcome to the real world, kid.
We do we just handle it differently.
Bollocks. I remember playing Halo 2 on XBox Live years ago with no mic, using my housmates account which had a female-sounding name.
If you've never done that you have no fucking idea, trust me. You get all the normal shit that everyone gets, plus a constat stream of "I'm going to fuck you", "I want to stick my tounge in your pussy, "I'm going to hunt you down and rape you."
I used to agree with that. Still do to the extent that you're right that you'll never eliminate this sort of behaviour. However I do not believe the current state of affairs, particularly the huge amount of shit even slightly promenant women have to put up with online, is the best the human race can do.
I never really realised how bad it is until rockpapershotgun, a gaming blog I read, took it up as an issue (a female writer for them got a load of abuse I think). The sheer number of very very angry men this created was a real eye opener. I'm now fully in favour of creating a stink over this sort of behaviour. I'm not a fan of legal sactions (outside threats of or incitement to violence) but I think there is a lot of room for behavioural change, which can come about by people making a fuss about the issue and highlighting it as unacceptable, rather than just treating it as normal.
Re: Not you as well.
True, but its a losing battle. When a word gets taken over by the mainstream there isn't much you can do about it. You can try an tell them it should be 'griefer' or whatever and they'll happily ignore you in total obliviousness. Like in hacker/cracker.
Probably better to save your breath and accept that words' meanings change over time.
Damn right. I don't block ads as such, but I use a flash blocker, and have animated gifs turned off. Anything that still manages to move gets adblocked. Usually at the domain level.
Whenever I have to use a browser that I haven't set up, and see all these animating looping things all over the place, I wonder how people can tolerate it without going nuts.
Re: Merchants do not raise their prices when their costs go up.
If we can't make money doing what we do we shift what we do (as we've done several times over the years) or go out of business.
You're missing the point about pricing. We are not altruistically keeping our prices down when our costs go up, we are deliberately trying to get as much money for our products as humanly possible already. The only reason we are not charging more than we currently do is that people have an annoying habit of buying stuff elsewhere if we do that. There probably are products we could make more money on by charging more, but that is an oversight on my part, and if I can figure out which ones they are I'll put them up first thing on Monday morning, even if our costs were halved.
Re: these are generally eaten by the merchant.
I am an ecommerce merchant. We eat the fees on credit card processing.
Merchants do not raise their prices when their costs go up. Trust me on this, we set them at the level where we think we will make the most money. Cost are obviously vitally important, but this "they'll just put their prices up" is a fallacy.
If we could put our prices up without losing more money in lost sales than we were making from the higher price, don't you think we'd have done it already?
Re: aren't realizing the full purchasing power of your money.
Tom 13 - there is a higher cost in using credit cards, but the way things are at the moment for consumer purchases, these are generally eaten by the merchant. Very few places will make you pay the additional transaction fees for using a credit card rather than a debit card, so any rewards are basically free money to you as long as you don't do something silly like not pay off the balance in full.
B2B transactions, understandably enough, will typically pass the cost on to their customers.
garden-snail I think that is actually out of date. You are not protected by the same statutory rights as with a credit card, but as a practical matter debit card providers these days have equivalent schemes. This didn't use to be the case, and since it doesn't have legal force it is a weaker protection I suppose, but in practice these days the protection is equivalent.
Still makes sense to use a credit card IMO though.
I'd find it pretty damn inconvenient to have my current account out of action - I imagine it would cause all sorts of issues with direct debits and standing orders, and make paying utility bills harder etc.
Nothing impossible, but why not use a credit card and minimise the issue? As long as you pay it off every month there is no downside - I find it helps me control my spending since I get a letter each month telling me how much I've spent in the last month.
Probably should look into the reward thing though. I'm still using the card I got when I was a student and they don't give me anything like that.
The reason to use a credit card rather than a debit card is not so much the level of protection offered - Visa Debit is pretty much as good as a credit card from that point of view. Its just that its a hell of a lot less disruptive to have your available credit nicked than your bank account cleared out, even if you do get the money back down the line.
That said, if you want to be nice to the seller on a large purchase, use a debit card. They pay a percentage on credit card transaction, and a flat fee on debit cards.
Re: I love the idea and desperately want one but what about professional drivers
My argument against that is simply the progress of humanity up until this point. Absent a compelling reason to believe that anything has fundamentally changed, I don't.
"If he buys a new machine, that machines was built by OTHER machines, with few if any people needed to oversee them."
That people are now so efficient is a good thing, not a bad one. I cannot see any reason to think that this becomes a bad thing past a certain point. Why should it? People are still needed, just ever less of them to perform the same tasks, and consequently the same number of people perform ever more tasks.
Re: I love the idea and desperately want one but what about professional drivers
Or if I may be allowed to post a lengthy quote, which makes the point far more eloquently (from That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen - Frederic Bastiat, 1850)
James B. had two francs which he had gained by two workmen; but it occurs to him, that an arrangement of ropes and weights might be made which would diminish the labour by half. Thus he obtains the same advantage, saves a franc, and discharges a workman.
He discharges a workman: this is that which is seen.
And seeing this only, it is said, "See how misery attends civilization; this is the way that liberty is fatal to equality. The human mind has made a conquest, and immediately a workman is cast into the gulf of pauperism. James B. may possibly employ the two workmen, but then he will give them only half their wages for they will compete with each other, and offer themselves at the lowest price. Thus the rich are always growing richer, and the poor, poorer. Society wants remodelling." A very fine conclusion, and worthy of the preamble.
Happily, preamble and conclusion are both false, because, behind the half of the phenomenon which is seen, lies the other half which is not seen.
The franc saved by James B. is not seen, no more are the necessary effects of this saving.
Since, in consequence of his invention, James B. spends only one franc on hand labour in the pursuit of a determined advantage, another franc remains to him.
If, then, there is in the world a workman with unemployed arms, there is also in the world a capitalist with an unemployed franc. These two elements meet and combine, and it is as clear as daylight, that between the supply and demand of labour, and between the supply and demand of wages, the relation is in no way changed.
The invention and the workman paid with the first franc, now perform the work which was formerly accomplished by two workmen. The second workman, paid with the second franc, realizes a new kind of work.
What is the change, then, which has taken place? An additional national advantage has been gained; in other words, the invention is a gratuitous triumph - a gratuitous profit for mankind.
From the form which I have given to my demonstration, the following inference might be drawn: - "It is the capitalist who reaps all the advantage from machinery. The working class, if it suffers only temporarily, never profits by it, since, by your own showing, they displace a portion of the national labour, without diminishing it, it is true, but also without increasing it."
I do not pretend, in this slight treatise, to answer every objection; the only end I have in view, is to combat a vulgar, widely spread, and dangerous prejudice. I want to prove, that a new machine only causes the discharge of a certain number of hands, when the remuneration which pays them as abstracted by force. These hands, and this remuneration, would combine to produce what it was impossible to produce before the invention; whence it follows that the final result is an increase of advantages for equal labour.
Who is the gainer by these additional advantages?
First, it is true, the capitalist, the inventor; the first who succeeds in using the machine; and this is the reward of his genius and his courage. In this case, as we have just seen, he effects a saving upon the expense of production, which, in whatever way it may be spent (and it always is spent), employs exactly as many hands as the machine caused to be dismissed.
But soon competition obliges him to lower his prices in proportion to the saving itself; and then it is no longer the inventor who reaps the benefit of the invention - it is the purchaser of what is produced, the consumer, the public, including the workmen; in a word, mankind.
And that which is not seen is, that the saving thus procured for all consumers creates a fund whence wages may be supplied, and which replaces that which the machine has exhausted.
Thus, to recur to the forementioned example, James B. obtains a profit by spending two francs in wages. Thanks to his invention, the hand labour costs him only one franc. So long as he sells the thing produced at the same price, he employs one workman less in producing this particular thing, and that is what is seen; but there is an additional workman employed by the franc which James B. has saved. This is that which is not seen.
When, by the natural progress of things, James B. is obliged to lower the price of the thing produced by one franc, then he no longer realizes a saving; then he has no longer a franc to dispose of, to procure for the national labour a new production; but then another gainer takes his place, and this gainer is mankind. Whoever buys the thing he has produced, pays a franc less, and necessarily adds this saving to the fund of wages; and this, again, is what is not seen.
Another solution, founded upon facts, has been given of this problem of machinery.
It was said, machinery reduces the expense of production, and lowers the price of the thing produced. The reduction of the profit causes an increase of consumption, which necessitates an increase of production, and, finally, the introduction of as many workmen, or more, after the invention as were necessary before it. As a proof of this, printing, weaving, &c., are instanced.
This demonstration is not a scientific one. It would lead us to conclude, that if the consumption of the particular production of which we are speaking remains stationary, or nearly so, machinery must injure labour. This is not the case.
Suppose that in a certain country all the people wore hats; if, by machinery, the price could be reduced half, it would not necessarily follow that the consumption would be doubled.
Would you say, that in this case a portion of the national labour had been paralyzed? Yes, according to the vulgar demonstration; but, according to mine, No; for even if not a single hat more should be bought in the country, the entire fund of wages would not be the less secure. That which failed to go to the hat-making trade would be found to have gone to the economy realized by all the consumers, and would thence serve to pay for all the labour which the machine had rendered useless, and to excite a new development of all the trades. And thus it is that things go on. I have known newspapers to cost eighty francs, now we pay forty-eight: here is a saving of thirty-two francs to the subscribers. It is not certain, or, at least, necessary, that the thirty-two francs should take the direction of the journalist trade; but it is certain, and necessary too, that if they do not take this direction they will take another. One makes use of them for taking in more newspapers; another, to get better living; another, better clothes; another, better furniture. It is thus that the trades are bound together. They form a vast whole, whose different parts communicate by secret canals; what is saved by one, profits all. It is very important for us to understand, that savings never take place at the expense of labour and wares.
Re: I love the idea and desperately want one but what about professional drivers
This argument would have kept the majority of the population working the land.
Any sort of automation is disruptive, and there are always losers. But in the long view being able to do the same work with less people makes us all richer - the people who are no longer employed find other work to do. The end result is that the same number of people accomplish more. This has transformed the world from one where people work all day simply to feed, cloth and shelter their families, into one where we all own vast quantities of goods which would have been unimaginable to our ancestors.
The dog in the nightime
The interesting bit will be who *doesn't* protest so vehemently.
Doesn't seem to have been much from the French president outside something on French television.
The world's militaries have a long history of stimulant use, I'm not necessarily sure if that something the rest of us should emulate. From:
"Drugs make WW II a lot easier to get. How did those huge armies fight so long and so hard, when people these days are so weak? Cuz, among other things, they were high, dude. In fact, I never understood how either side could have stood up to the misery of a battle like Stalingrad until I found out that every damn soldier on both sides was high on speed. Once you know that, Stalingrad is a whole lot easier to understand. If you’d given my construction-site boss Don a submachinegun and told him to hold our construction site to the death—and supplied him with enough meth for the duration—he’d have been all for it."
Re: it's a chimney
"If the Mac Pro is meant to sit near the user, then taking thermal design (with its acoustic implications) as the starting point is very sensible. Storage and and accelerator cards (more than you could fit in an old MacPro, you could now have a little GPU render farm in a rack) can live elsewhere.
"Should the Mac Pro fail, just unplug it and plug in a spare Thunderbolt-equipped machine - storage and accelerator cards will still be available to it. Some people might not even need to bother with a new Mac Pro, and will plug in a Macbook Pro."
Thing is that you could do all this if they had kept the same case type. Plus having all the options of internal expansion for those that want this.
The point about noise makes sense, and I know there are some people who are currently lugging Mac Pros around to locations who are drooling over the new case. But I find it hard to believe that there are enough of them to make up for what is lost:
*The ability to mount 4 (or more if you use the optical bays) internal hard drives - which for many users provides more than enough storage without expensive external arrays.
*A standard size graphics card. Its hard enough to get manufacturers to make third party graphics cards when they only have to write special firmware. If they have to design a special form factor then that is going to make upgrades much less likely.
*8 RAM sockets. It looks like the machines will max out at 128GB RAM, but with only 4 sockets that means using 32GB modules. Going to be a while before you can do that for less than you paid for the machine.
*PCIe slots that don't require you to buy a Thunderbolt chassis.
Apart from portability and less noise - which are important but niche requirements - the only thing you seem to get in exchange is a cool look. Which seems an odd exchange for a Pro machine to make.
For the record I'm a long way for being in the market for a Mac Pro myself, but I do work with the hardware and users a lot - though mostly at the freelancer/micro-company level.
Re: Forget innuendo, XBox is all about DRM rape
>Blimey - so forcing a woman to have sex was fine as long as she was your wife? I'm glad they changed that bit of the law then.
Rape within marriage was criminalised in the UK by a decision of the House of Lords. In 1991.
Its still very much a live discussion in some parts of the world - I recently saw an interview with a Ugandan woman, who said she thought the concept of a husband committing a crime of raping his wife was ridiculous. She had consented to sex at his will she she married him in her view.
If thats the one I think it is, it is both a place name rather than a word, and was deliberately invented as a lure for tourists.
Re: "ARM's TrustZone" - abuse of ENGLISH!
Leaving aside the linguistics and ethics, this: "In any case, video DRM always gets cracked sooner rather than later. One reason is that it is because you have to *display* the output" seems to indicate you skimmed the article.
The whole point of the chip seems to be to solve this. Now I don't claim to understand how it works, but this isn't some MPAA guy saying "we've got some *technology* that will stop copying by using binary and encryption and other things you little people wouldn't understand." This is ARM, and if they say they've done it I'd think it warrants hearing them out at the very least.
I was just reading this on the Daily Mash: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/science-fiction-fans-now-harder-than-football-fans-2013051668958 and wondering what on Earth they were satirising. Now I know... the mind boggles.
Re: @Equitas - (Unfortunately) you are wrong!
As others have said, the seller is taking the risk, not the card holder - you got the fradulent transaction returned to you didn't you? You were mildly inconvenienced perhaps, the seller lost the funds and is out the item they shipped to the non-registered address.
The reason merchants take the risk is that so many people want it. For all sorts of reasons people find it convenient to have things shipped to alternate addresses, so merchants offer them the service and take the risk.
If you really want to blame someone who isn't the thief, blame yourself for allowing your card details to escape into the wild. Without that, the unfortunate merchant wouldn't have been defrauded (yes I recognise that with the way the system works, this is pretty much impossible and there are so many compromised cards out there that one more is utterly irrelevant. But it makes more sense from blaming the poor merchant for being defrauded).
Re: re: evidence that someone didn't read the article
It clearly states that Bloomberg has said that messaging data was not available. Which isn't quite the same thing.
Re: Expert help...
Probably depends on how many orbits it takes to dock with the ISS. Wiki says it is travelling at 17,277mph, which is a lot of two quids...
You can easily get a second cup out of a teabag, just let it steep for a while longer. More probably, if you are desparate.
Re: What about our Queen?
Didn't Michelle Obama commit some faux pas with the queen? Which was a handy way of identifying people who enjoy getting upset over fuck all.
(why no edit function)Perhaps that is only their costs though.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, I think Oracle paid for the costs of both sides up to the point of the offer.
"So, if you want to make a case into a precedent which helps other people in the future (which is possible the case here) then you HAVE to push through to a final legal decision. At which point the court claims that you've wasted its time."
Just playing devil's advocate (ha!) but if she was offered a settlement that was significantly higher than he award, then she doesn't seem to have suceeded in adding anything extra to the case law. So either she was after some additional judgement that she failed to get, or the settlement was all she was ever likely to achieve (in the opinion of the court). In either case I can see some justification for the other side not to have to cover their own costs beyond that point.
Completely ignorant of the case though, which is never a good position to form opinions from.
Isn't this just for these early adopters, before the device is on general sale? Which makes some sense since with them only available invite-only, there will be plenty of people willing to pay well over the odds for them.
If this is part of the retail TOS then I agree there is an issue, but I don't see any reason to assume it is - there would seem to be legal issues apart from anything else.
Think about what you would have to convince a Thatcher hater of to get them to change their opinion of her.
An unavoidable part of her not being an evil witch who destoryed livlihoods across the country for some evil purpose of her own, is that the damage done in the eightess was unavoidable and was simply due to the state of the country when she took over.
In other words it was due to the lefty/corporationist post-war consensus policies so beloved of Thatcher haters. To absolve Thatcher they not only have to forget their hate of her, they have to realise and admit to themselves that all the things they blame her for were actually their fault, or the fault of those they support.
Good luck with that, but I think you're fighting against human nature on this one.
Re: Read by people who like tech and hate thieves.
"Where's the thieve hating bit of the site? I seem to be stuck in the tech. half...."
I sodding hate thieves. I had some chap (ooh, and he sounded foreign too) give me a stolen card over the phone for £500 worth of stuff yesterday, and I'd happily strangle him if I could get my hands on him.
But I'm not going to go a witch hunt for the ultimate recipient of an item that was stolen thousands of miles away from them. Its ridiculous.
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up
- Massive! Yahoo! Mail! outage! going! on! FOURTH! straight! day!