People who make money gaming a system are upset that they won't be able to game the system as well any more. Are you sure?

There are privacy issues, but these people don't care about them. All they care about is your click, so that they get the opportunity to ruin your privacy first.

Bloody scavengers.

Windows has had this for years... They just call it a BSOD

Lower prices leads to higher demand and lower marginal revenue?

Get this to the economists quick!

Another device I'll have to invalidate the warranty on just to get it working as intended by the engineers. Good Job Nokia... Good job.

Right. Hands up. Who used a jailbroken iPhone on the network and brought all this down...

That would be another Opera feature added to firefox then...

This explains that clause in the iTunes EULA about not using the software for terrorism then...

It is very important that i stick up for a company with millions of marketing dollars because it is important that everyone knows how great they are. And they are great, they're so great you have no idea how great they are because you are blinded by the rival company. That makes you a moron. Do you like being a moron? I bet you and your moron friends gather round and play spot the moron and then just point at yourselves. Ha.

Or maybe you are too poor to afford more expensive Company's products. Or maybe you're too much of a snob to buy cheaper Company's products. In either case you're flawed. And I'm going to tell you how flawed you are because you NEED TO UNDERSTAND. I bet you go to bed at night crying about your inferior, or maybe superior monetary position and wish you had bought a product from the Company I buy products from. Because the company I buy products from is amazing!

Have you ever even looked at your company's products properly? They are not well made at all. I've heard lots of stories of your company's products failing all the time. And I've never heard any problems with my company's products. I love my company so much.

I really feel bad for you. You'll never know the joy of using my company's product. You'll just sit there playing with your company's product all day. And I'll be laughing at you. Ha ha ha. You're such a silly person. If only you were better like me. Then you would have superior products and people would like you more.

Well, it was nice talking with you, but I need to go now. I really appreciated the chance to remind you how great my favourite company was. I bet my favourite company is really proud of me for helping them do their advertising for them. I can't talk to any of my real friends about this sort of thing because they think I'm petty and need to stop advertising my Company. But I just love them so much. Any time anyone says something bad about my Company I have to get in there and show them how wrong they are.

God, I love my company.

I see nobody has got a sense of humour running on a mac yet then... Why all the angst?

Nobody takes anything running on a Mac seriously apart from Hippies, Graphic Designers and Graphic designing hippies.

Mine is the one coated in Kerosine thanks, I'll be at the bar.

Now instead of downloading tracks one at a time, sometimes struggling through mistagged things and record label corrupted files I can just download the entire album in one handy torrent file!

Well done Lars, you rock!

But writing Assembly code is, as you found slow, slow, prone to error, inflexible, and worst, architecture-dependant. You write a kick ass kernel now, Intel releases a new processor with an extra 5 registers, just for a laugh. Or switches to 128 bits, or changes endian-ness. Even adding a new instruction set and your kernel has to be rewritten to take advantage of these features.

Releasing a 32/64 bit kernel becomes two major rewrites. All of which has to be done at the basically unreadable byte code level.

There are reasons why Kernels stopped being written in Assembly in the first place.

Contrast to writing in C and compiling with a compiler optimised for the correct architecture.

Unfortunately your 'Tiny experience" programming shows very much as ignorance.

There are times when a nice bit of assembly is very useful for raw control. Then there are 10 million line kernels.

If a company goes into the research and development of a product or technique but has not have the market capital or position to release the product to market why should it not reap the rewards?

If it feels its design and technique are being used by another manufacturer then why should it not ask for money?

Just because a company is not well known does not make it a troll. As much as you may like it to.

So just to be clear, the problem is:

Bad code?

Bad compiler flags?

Bad Compiler?

Uncaring developers?

Arrogant developers?

The C language itself?

Security researchers for bringing up the bug?

A lack of using proper tools to analyse the code?

Hundreds of eyes, hundreds of opinions, hundreds of wrong ideas. Wisdom of the crowd innit?

Yes, they ask that you pay for some merchandise thereby supporting development. You are more than free to download for free. To compile it for free. To take a free USB stick and put it on there for free. To ram said USB forceably wherever you want for free.

But if you feel like giving something back to a community and have the coding skills of a cock-fingered rabbit you are also free to give some money to the foundation and recieve a fancy little USB stick in return.

Incidentally... Ubuntu also sells a USB stick preloaded with 9.04. Yes, they want you to PAY FOR it. For a free open source etc, etc, etc...

In before the ignorant comments about asberger's, the rehashing of argument about whether he should be debated, the morons yelling "Hang 'im", the UFO jokes, the sympathy posts, the black helicopters, the "just give him a job", the intense and unfounded hatred, the freedom fighters, the submissive America supporters, the anti-Jaqui Smith comments, and of course the inevitable post from Ms. Bee chastising each of the above...

Why even enable comments on these articles, you could just copy the same discussion over from previous threads...

Have a fun afternoon moderating!

I understand now Lou, don't worry. You see I was confused for a second that you and me might be designing a system which could work in the real world. Seems you don't require this as an outcome. Which is fine, I guess. But you have to make it clear that you are allowed to bend physical rules like access speeds for silicon or hardware. It means I can too.

In fact, it means I can take your system to its logical conclusion and point out a nasty little truth about your entire idea. You see, what you have designed are a series of interconnected components, that when dealt with provide a change or a signal to other interconnected cells.

Put simply, your cells take some degree of input. Process it. And provide output. - If this sounds similair, it might be... Depends how far through that textbook you got.

Furthermore, as a collection of cells the input is stored in one queue, the output in another. On a switch input becomes output and vice versa. These lists of cells provide a series of instructions of which cells are to be affected on the next cycle. For the sake of historical correctness, lets store these lists on tape. But I mean, you can store it on whatever you want, including physics bending infinite write speed silicon if you want.

Next, you have at least one processor which deals with the Head of the queue, it takes it, performs the calculation needed to do whatever it is the cell needs to do, and provides some change in the output. As this processor deals with the head of the queue, lets be nice and call it, well... Lets call it the Head.

And then we're going to have changed the state of the system, and that will be stored somewhere. Lets call that somewhere the state.

Now we have infinite read and write speed. And, as we have infinitely many processors we presumably have infinitely many heads. Because, as shown in my argument in a previous post, as soon as you don't have either of these things your system becomes indeterminate in terms of real world processing time. Although, for this argument it doesn't particularily matter if you didn't. Because by now you must be noticing something happening here...

--The Million Dollar Question--

So Lou, when you have an infinite number of HEADS, working through a list of instructions stored on TAPE, with infinite read and write speed affecting the STATE and a TABLE who's instruction is, move one place forward. What do you think you have?

It looks like an incomplete, but otherwise Universal Turing Machine to me.

It also has horrible overheads for reraltime processing on anything other than n dedicated processors, where n is the number of *Single Components* in your program. It is why research into a similair thing cannot be used in real robots until hardware provides the ability for millions of dedicated processors, all running a simple vector transformation.

You are not revolutionary. You are not a rebel. You are just misinformed. And so convinced of your own intelligence that criticism is ignored. I'm more than willing to take this up with you on your own site rather than wasting more of the poor Moderatrix's time. But I get the feeling the argument would descend quickly into you calling me an idiot and deleteing any further comment of mine. It seems to be your style. Like a child unwilling to accept that their long held belief in Father Christmas is misguided.

I'll repent. I'll quite happily join the Church of Lou. Just as soon as you deal with the nasty little truths behind your system.

Good start... My turn.

1) Your theory on spacetime shows a fundamental misunderstanding of calculus and furthermore of relativity. Even as someone with very little knowledge of physics I can see the problem with your argument. I'll illustrate by applying your same principle to a one dimensional space, with vector (x), clearly, when you differentiate this with respect to x, you get 1. Ergo, by Louis maths movement in a straight line is fundamentally flawed. You see, when differentiating by t you are calculation the rate of change of whatever you are talking about with respect to that variable. The rate of change of t, with respect to t is clearly going to be one. By first principles of calculus. A small change in something creates an equally small change in itself. Congratulations, a huge victory in stating the obvious, but not a victory against space time. In order to measure some velocity in the time direction you would have to paramatise the time vector in your calculations creating a geodesic equation {ct(k), x(k), y(k), z(k)} differentiating now with respect to k, you will find a velocity, acceleration and whatever else you want can be quantified. Your problem here was that you misunderstood calculus. Don't worry it's hard.

b) Your argument that it is possible to create a deterministic way of programming removing the problem of non-determinism. This relies entirely on things being perfect. Your model for computing fails entirely to consider user interactions and the need for interrupts. You argue that hardware can be modelled by a finite state machine, and as such software should be able to be too. But software compensates for the limitations of hardware and solves some of the problems of the non-deterministic world we live in. Consider. By your model two objects could request a read from different areas on a disk, A third object would recieve a signal when the read was complete from object 2, and pass a signal giving the current clock value. Unless your entire system halts while accessing disk, creating a huge bottleneck, you have no possible way of knowing what value will be sent as a signal from object 3.

cat) Your model of programming, by mapping the idea of a neural network into software is inherently slow. On each clock pulse you must pass messages, analyse messages and send messages. From every active software object. And as the only way to communicate with an object is through signals and there is no grand operating system to control it a cycle soon becomes great fun. In a world void of interrupts and controlling software a simple three object cycle soon becomes cataclysmic to the operating of your system. Exponentially growing the number of signals generated for each swap. While a cycle may be easy to see in a small system, in a grand system you can destory everything, sometimes only in rare conditions.

4) Your model of programming fails entirely to consider the fundamental part of the Turing Machine. Input. Returning to 2) Input from a user can occur at any time, while your system is in any state. Lacking any way to handle this input your model collapses spectacularly. If your way of handling input is to give it priority and handle it at the front of the queue, your system is non deterministic. If your model is to add it to the front of the next queue your model is non-deterministic in the time to service. If you add it to anywhere else in the next queue your model is non-deterministic in terms of its own state.

I'm a sodding first year computer science student and I can see holes in everything you do. My friends and I had a good laugh yesterday reading through your page. Of course, we're all blinded by the establishment, etc, etc, etc. But your ideas are so fundamentally broken as to become insanity.

Seriously, seek accademic review. Find out what is wrong with your theories from people with more experience than I have.

Or keep making an arse of yourself online. I mean, I'm really not that bothered...

You put your arguments forward precisely the way any delusional pseudo-scientist might. Avoiding peer review, avoiding having any effect on the scientific community and avoiding open debate.

You argue your superiority to 'experts' through assertion alone. Discrediting their work as 'so-called' and flawed without providing any support for any of your ideas.

Perhaps you are a unique genius, the likes of which never seen before. A true revolutionary against our broken information society.

I think it's more likely your grandiosity is showing...

"Schneier now backs an approach taken by BlackBerry devices and iPhones, which display each character briefly before masking it. "That seems like an excellent compromise," he said."

Translates roughly as "Schneier still misses the point spectacularly and thinks that briefly displaying each character of your password on a screen in front of your colleagues, students, children or general shoulder watchers is a great idea!"

Plenty comments calling him a moron on the other article. Seems he's still a moron now.

You can sod off if you think I'm going to be getting myself a credit card I don't need just so that I can buy a knife. Its bad enough I need to pay for a passport/driving license to prove my age despite being in no position financially to go abroad or to run a car around London.

Some people say that the NUS is utterly out of touch with the students it represents. Fools they are, contemptuous fools!

Whenever I click a link in Windows Live Messenger the hooks open the page in IE, despite opera being my default browser. Whenever I open a moron app with a small integrated browser, the browser rendering engine is that used by IE, the User-agent reports as IE, and to all intents and purposes I would be as well using IE.

Whenever a site fails to render properly due to non compliance with standards - You can blame IE hacks.

Whenever you have to spend half an hour testing your layouts and scipts in 5 different browsers - You can blame IE workarounds.

Whenever your corporate software relies on you using IE - You can blame the IE hooks.

Tell me which of these things makes a microsoft Auto-monopoly a good thing and I will happily uninstall my Opera and concede your victory.

The service is pathetic. And seems to be utilising some subtle social engineering to build up its numbers. Y'see, I searched for myself giving them an address better known as Edinburgh Airport. Needless to say, not only was there one result. But there were many results!

Yes, That's right. IN AN AIRPORT.

But of course, for me to see these details I have to input my mobile phone number for them and opt-in to the service.

Do your readers a favour Reg and remove the link to this site...

...Ok, I'll just go back to torrenting the ~3 pieces of BBC output worth watching then. Greedy twats.

...Is why anyone would want to follow a gay fish on twitter anyway...

"The collection of forensic data from tragic events like bombings helps us develop strategies to prevent the crime in the first place,"

But by preventing the crime there would be no evidence to collect, so they would be unable to prevent the crime, which would result in the crime happening again, so then they would have the evidence to prevent the crime...

Unless we were in a universe resistant to changes in the time-line, in which case the event would happen anyway and these cameras would be useless.

They haven't thought this plan through at all...

No you guys are right, the pirate bay was definitely my goto place for linux distributions. I remember one night thinking:

"I want a new Linux kernel, where will I look for a tracker? The Distro home page... Hells no! Google... Hells no! I'm going to the pirate bay! Yeah! That's exactly what I'm going to do!"

Then this other night I was thinking of setting up a torrent to send out some MP3s of my Indie band that I'm in. I love the legitimate uses of P2P idea so I thought a little about putting the index .torrent on my own website... Then I had a thought. Clearly, this makes no sense! I should be putting this in "The Pirate Bay"!

There are legitimate uses for P2P, sure... How many legitimate uses can you find for The Pirate Bay?

I'm sure I remember the day when these videos were considered a promotional tool as a way of encouraging people to buy and listen to singles and albums by the band in question. If I understand the gentleman correctly he is asking for lots and lots of lovely royalties in return for Youtube advertising his clients free of charge (And making a pittance in advertising back on the side).

Just like when Pandora were quite happily advertising new bands to their listeners free of charge and making miniscule amounts of money on the side.

Utterly stupid. Surely they'll run out of feet to shoot themselves in eventually... Until then, they have gone from making some revenue from official youTube videos to making... um... No money... At all... I approve of the wanky business school these guys went to...

Because as we all know very well the only things we should support are Cancer and Animals... How dare a manager with a vested interest in supporting retail workers choose to support a charity giving support to retail workers. How dare he!

Won't someone think of the poor animals!

Perhaps it was one of them hoes he done been hustlin' with his gangstaz in them clubz...

(Am I doing it right?)

I'm glad the correct level of outrage has been shown in this case.

Had we not stamped out these controversial toys REAL TERRORISTS could have used them to plan REAL TERRORIST attacks. Imagine if they had built a scale model of a high security area (Airports anyone!?!?!) with these toys they would be able to, in FULL DETAIL, show EXACTLY where they were going to stand.

Want more proof that they were planning to do this: http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=7894

Anyone else notice a STARTLING similarity between that and heathrow!?!?!

If the police are wanting to charge them then the only way to ensure a fair trial would be to make sure that those sitting on the jury were impartial, and by ensuring that the names are not released there is a lesser risk that those called to Jury Duty will make the link between the high profile nature of the biased reporting in the newspapers and the case they are sitting on.

If no charges are to be brought the implication is that they are innocent, in this case having people publicly labled as "Baby-Murderers" is a gross injustice and a huge risk to their personal safety.

Keeping these names private would have been benefitial to everyone involved. As usual people can't see beyond the tabloid grabbing headlines...

Come on... you work (mostly) in the IT industry, you don't have to watch a file to run an MD5 check on it...

Now stop imagining a bunch of Lawyers sitting around a TV getting excited and start finding a way to get one of these letters delivered to Andrew Sachs so that the Faily Mail can go crazy about it and we can force an apology out of someone...

I'm sitting on a university network, on a friday evening, and I get my speed reported as 87.8MB/s...

Something tells me Virgin are blowing some hot air into their happy-capping service...

Just purely bat-shit run of the mill insanity...

http://www.mindfrost82.com/f148-access/135801-note-aaron-kempf.html

Nothing to see here...

I never realised that filling in a password reset form constituted "Exploiting a flaw" in the yahoo mail system...

I wonder if that means accessing someone's laptop if they have the password hint set up as "The colour of the sky" also counts as "exploiting a flaw".

Guess we just have to wait for the inevitable technically inept judge with a suspicious bulging back pocket to make the decision.

Paris knows all about suspicious bulging pockets naturally...

Three things need to be pulled through past the redisgn. The old comment's icons, the nice big chunky text, and Odds 'n' Sods.

Other than that I can live with it, even if it is starting to look more and more '2.0 every time I click 'home'. Expecting regular video-podcasts linked to our mini-feeds and a chance to add the journalists we like to our friends list any day now...