When we get to the end of 2015, is El Reg. going to have a best headlines poll?
Because if they're not, they should.
3757 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
When we get to the end of 2015, is El Reg. going to have a best headlines poll?
Because if they're not, they should.
Well, not saying you're wrong but as a counter-argument, I have noticed that the fewer people involved in wielding power, the more erratic and unpredictable the wielding of that power is. Which is fairly obvious the more you think about it.
And North Korea is ruled by just one unchallenged dictator.
Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that we didn't have this technological capability back when we thought we were heading towards another ice age instead of today, when all the science is settled.
Imagine the harm we could have done.
>>"I didn't read what you pasted. Thanks for re-iterating it for us!"
I thought of that when I wrote it but figured as this forum has no Ignore feature (in which case many people would not have seen x7's post), anyone reading my response to them would almost certainly have or be imminently about to read their post.
To the point that I think there's a good chance your post and giant FAIL logo are just snark. If you are indeed just selectively skipping posts and got to mine alone somehow, I apologise. I'm just tired of x7's selfish rants which are mainly trolling across the forums.
>>"BBC have already leaked that Clara gets killed off in episode 10, so next week should be better"
Something that many of us were not aware of so thanks for your selfishness.
>>"What I am more bothered about is the belief that the gov should be demanding more tax from people instead of reducing it"
I'd be more okay with the taxes if the government spent them in better ways. But the Department of Health is corrupt and funnelled billions to friends of friends in the form of outsourced and flawed projects; the UK war in Afghanistan cost us over thirty billion and with Iraq I don't know how much that will be. We spent a fortune bombing Libya to try and install a West-friendly regime there. We'll be paying those off all these for a long time to come.
Meanwhile our roads fall apart and our public transport network gets worse every year whilst costing more. Not to mention how much we must be paying Atos to be sending the odd disabled person to their death.
Whilst nobody likes paying taxes, I think the real disconnect is with what the government spends it all on.
>>"HMRC will come down on these small business's like a tonne of bricks - while continuing to allow Amazon, Talk Talk, Google, Vodaphone et al, to carry on as usual."
But that's the point of the exercise the town is carrying out. They are attempting to position themselves under the same protections these big players use as a means of highlighting the problem. It's a practical version of "if you argue this, then you have to include that".
Having read an article on this some of the local shopkeepers highlight how the tax avoidance affects competition. An independent café may not be able to afford to compete with Starbucks when the latter doesn't have to pay the same tax rate. That's what is motivating the town which has a very high proportion of independent shops to do this.
The government tries to create some special circumstances for these big players. But they can't outright legislate "Vodafone doesn't have to pay tax", they have to set up some criteria that Vodafone can fulfil but others can't. This town are manoeuvring to tick the same boxes. The town are happy for the government to "come down on them like a tonne of bricks". The aim is to catch the bigger players in the same shower of bricks.
>>"In my book this is a bad thing."
And I agree. Just listing it as a factor why MySQL took a lead over Postgres.
>>>>"However, MySQL with MyISAM ran a lot faster."
>>"Actually, no, it very much isn't. Even on read-only loads InnoDB has been faster for well over a decade (since early MySQL 5.0 releases)."
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I said that MySQL with MyISAM ran faster than Postgres back in the early 2000's and that this is one of the reasons MySQL became the most popular free database.
Well... yes and no. The thing is, both MySQL and Postgres are free and open source. That creates overlap in their market spaces. In terms of using them, yes, Postgres is more reminiscent of Oracle than MySQL. But when you're setting up a service or starting a project, if you're looking at MySQL you can also look at Postgres.
In early days, Postgres was certainly the more robust and sophisticated database. By far, in fact. However, MySQL with MyISAM ran a lot faster. Which made it the DB of choice for the explosion of web forums and CMSs we got in the late '90s and early 2000's that wanted lots of cheap, fast read capability and really didn't care too much about strict data integrity or sophisticated features. Also MySQL had (and has) less of a learning curve. Neither is especially difficult, but MySQL will make smart guesses about what you mean with lots of forgiving defaults and multiple ways of doing things. You can slap on an autoincrement qualifier to a field and you don't have to understand sequences (no, serial is not quite the same); MySQL will default to making everything case-insensitive (just to be helpful) which can actually trip you up but is a great example of how MySQL takes an approach of "I know what the users will want...". Another great thing is to compare query plans between the two. MySQL will give you a basic summation that lets you look at the output and go: "hey, it's not using an index on that join, let's add one". Postgres will give you all the nuts and bolts and let you go: "hey, I wonder if this would run faster if I to set the from_collapse_limit differently here".
Now skip forward and MySQL has more sophistication than it used to (assuming you're using InnoDB and not MyISAM nowadays). Postgres in turn has improved dramatically in performance. For many cases you can use either. But MySQL still carries that legacy of its initial popularity and still has an easier learning curve.
But an easy learning curve can be a two-edged sword. Taking just that little bit longer to really understand Postgres reaps great benefits, imo. It is now performance-equivalent to MySQL InnoDB at the least and remains the more sophisticated of the two. By choice, I will work with Postgres, though often enough I'm called in to consult on MySQL systems and I'm fine with that.
But TL;DR: I think it's absolutely right to talk about comparisons between MySQL and Postgres. They service a lot of the same potential market.
I think Word vs. Notepad is over-doing the comparison. Not least because Notepad is fine for its purpose and people might take this to mean that Postgres is bloated with unnecessary features. It's not, it's a lean piece of machinery, very elegant, very solid. I would go more with something like Surface Pro vs. iPad Pro. And I'm really not attempting to kick off a fan-war with that analogy. I just think that people will know what I mean. Both great bits of hardware, overlapping somewhat in target market, both with plenty of great features. Just one is that little bit more coherent, capable and planned. The iPad Pro is maybe a little bit easier to pick and go "this is familiar" and start poking things, but after a day or two that advantage is gone but one still has a better kickstand and some extra capabilities. But either might be fine for your needs depending on what those are. "Notepad" is a little unfair, imo. MySQL is fine and very capable. It's just that I think Postgres is the more sophisticated and solid. It's what I would choose to build an important system with.
Mothers these days had their teenage and university years the Nineties. Given how much simpler technology has become these days (I can install and use GNU/Linux without even touching a compiler, and say what you like about Windows 7,8 or 10, compared to the Hell that was Windows 98 using and configuring it is easy), I think parents now are probably more technically adept than most kids. Or close.
The tech-illiterate parent syndrome can probably start to enter its dying decade, I hope.
No traffic management on Andrews & Arnold, however. Also, they're actively against the Snooper's Charter which I have to say is a positive sign.
Hardly the panacea you describe. Give me the ability to execute as the webserver and I'll probably be able to pull off all sorts of dreadful things that would knock your share price into the gutter. Getting the same access to your database that your legitimate web pages have sounds like a fine starting point to me. And there's plenty more where that came from. You lack imagination when you talk about "mess up that user's data". First thing I'd do with these "holes" you think aren't serious, is start collecting your visitor's information - usernames, passwords, et al. Then depending on how valuable or not that is, I'd start using your site(s) to distribute my malware.
I mean sure, don't run your webserver as root if you don't need to, but the way you write it is that "it doesn't matter what holes any server side scripting may have then" if you've "backed up". That isn't so.
Trying to take it further. It's still draft and the time to hassle your MPs about it is now. Few people write to MPs - for every letter on a subject, there are many more who didn't write. So when they get a lot on a particular subject, it does stand out.
Also, it is surprisingly satisfying to take fifteen minutes or so needed to just have actually spoken up. MP details available here.
I like GNU/Linux as much as the next person, but can we please not have every Windows article spammed with comments about it? It's tiresome. And it reminds me of annoying sales callers who say: "You're using _____ for your gas? You could save money by switching to..."
When I click on an article about Windows releases then that's what I want to read about. Not be preached at by zealots. And I say this as someone who has been using GNU/Linux (and UNIX before it) for longer that most people who do. Just go away.
>>"Who is with me."
I love that you ended that with a full stop, not a question mark. Lovely touch and I have to say, a great slogan for your new religion. :)
Though I have to remind you of a comment by the Ninth Doctor: "Don't worship me, I'd make a very bad god. No day off for a start!".
They're a technologically advanced species though. Maybe they have birth control. They might just have settled on twenty million as a good number to have. Large enough to absorb epidemics or to ensure the survival of some pockets if the humans one day decided to launch a surprise attack, small enough to not be a burden on the Earth or to make the human governments feel over-threatened.
Anyway, this was a very good episode. Capaldi's speech was very impressive. Both the delivery and the writing with little bits like "this is a scale model of war, you never know who's going to die...". I was impressed.
It did occur to me that if Zygon's went public it would revolutionize the sex industry for several interesting reasons. But I suppose Doctor Who wouldn't cover that.
>>"But why call it feminism?? Why not simply call it what it what it actually is, which is equality & egalitarianism"
Same reason you call oranges oranges and apples apples, rather than just call both food. Specificity is often very useful and efficient.
>>It's a difficult case. To "Joe Bloggs", more is almost always better. The case probably rests on whether a typical non-technical punter would have bought an AMD chip rather than an Intel chip purely because it claimed to have "more"
Great, so I can sue Intel because I bought an i3 that runs at 4.2GHz and it's not more powerful than the i7-5930 that runs at 3.8GHz. I mean it should, right? Because we thought that this higher number means it's more powerful so Intel owe me money for deceptive advertising. I mean what they advertise is true, but they didn't protect me from my ignorance about CPUs so that means they're guilty in my book!
>>I always divide by two when looking at AMD desktop processors."
Then you are estimating processor performance badly. FPU operations are a minority part of most use cases. The reasons why Bulldozer is slower than say, Haswell, are complex - scheduling problems, weaker branch prediction and other things... Not, in most cases, the shared FPUs. Even with FP operations, the FPUs have 256-bit width and actually can work on two operations simultaneously (one for each core), they just have to be 128-bit operations. Which is common enough.
Basically, your logic is flawed. SUN make a 16-core chip that has one FPU between all of them. Does that mean each of the cores is really only 1/16th of a core? Perhaps they should be sued.
This is a stupid lawsuit, by people suing over their own ignorance.
Certainly wins the award in the category of Ouchiest headline, even if there are cleverer ones out there.
I hope Shaun didn't cut his fingers typing that one in!
You know, I really don't care what David Mellor gets up to in his bedroom. Or anyone else's really (with the exception of mine where I would care a very great deal if I found him there). I am totally and completely fine with MPs being exempt from this as I'm sick of politics being based around people's image / sex life / browsing habits. In fact, given that I want GCHQ and the Home Office to have as little leverage on those we elect to represent us as possible, I want them to be exempt.
I just want everyone else to be exempt as well.
So lets just not make this law. Sound good?
>>"How are we doing with the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" argument?"
Turns out lots of us have something to hide but oddly enough, we don't like admitting it. What with the whole point of "hiding". It's a self-defeating question as the government well knows, which is why they kept using it.
Of course the real answer to "if you've done nothing wrong..." is to ask back "who decides what is wrong?" Because you can bet the answer isn't you.
>>"Hopefully he will not fall for: their dog barked, crapped, went to the wrong school area, etc."
Well one would hope. But he is a political appointee held up as a "don't worry - you see we have someone who will check we behave" palliative to the electorate. On the off-chance he does turn out to be ethical, he will be ignored. If he turns out to be both ethical AND have a backbone, he will be replaced.
What was the name of that senior health advisor who spoke out against his own government about drug legalization? You know, the one that vanished immediately afterwards? He who pays the piper, and all that...
>>"New Who has an unfortunate habit of making UNIT troops out to be utter incompetents. I think the last time they were ACTUALLY effective was when they loaded steel-jacketed rounds and kicked Sontaran ass. These guys? Complete morons."
Well I assume that UNIT soldiers are sourced from national armies. So when Geneva calls you up and says you need to supply five soldiers as your contribution and tells you they'll be working under the British to stand around most of the time and then occasionally be thrown at aliens who probably can't be harmed by Earth weapons anyway, which of your soldiers are you going to send? The command is going to come down from your general: "pick out the most useless and unpopular soldiers you have - the ones that you only don't kick out because of all the form filling. I've found you a way to get rid of them."
>>"President of Earth etc - Death in Heaven (series final episode last year)"
Oh yes, that would explain why I blocked it out. Thank you.
...and watchable. Got a little bit thick with allegory at times, but this is aimed at all ages so you need to be a bit unsubtle sometimes.
A few beats seemed off to me. The Doctor working with UNIT and saying "try to kill as few as possible" jarred badly. He's been like this before in olden days, but it's a very large shift from Ten and Eleven. And he surely well knows that killing any at all will just push things further towards war. Seemed weird he wasn't trying to get UNIT to back off from their normal gung-ho approach. What happened to the "man who never would" ? And what's with the leader of UNIT driving alone to a small enemy-controlled town and walking around by herself?
Finally, what is this "President of the World" nonsense and swanky jet? I've obviously blacked out the memory of some past episode to not recall this.
Kapersky Labs were the ones who unearthed the Equation Group and their work. And that is some of the most sophisticated malware ever written (if not THE most sophisticated). If they can find that, why do you look for conspiracies for them to defeat far less sophisticated attacks? Or is it actually your contention that Kapersky and the NSA are "working a little too closely". Because that would be the only way your statement stood up.
What's with the "throw enough mud" crowd here today. No evidence, barely any logic, but hey, let's all attack Kapersky because you know... Russian.
Well, yes. Kapersky services their customers as they should.
I don't think Kapersky have a lock on the keys, btw. Now that they are available I imagine others could produce similar tools. Kapersky are simply the fastest off the block with building this into their software and their company did some of the initial work examining CoinVault so helped bring this about.
But yes, Kapersky Labs wont be emailing a tool to resolve this to random people who aren't their customers, you are right.
>>"I merely pointed out the facts that show that the "In Switzerland there are lots of guns but not lots of gun crime" argument is not a valid one"
I never made such an argument. I simply posted these facts to refute Dabbs contention that any such person is "a psychopath in training". Those facts were that the Swiss population in majority chose such a situation for themselves. Switzerland is not a nation with a majority of psychopaths. I also pointed out that many countries and cultures have much higher gun ownership than the UK and doubted thst they had same wildly different rate of psychopathy.
You keep posting about an argument which I not only didn't make but in my original post explicitly made clear was not relevant to my point and why.
>>"Switzerland has weapons that are supplied by the military to trained national service men and stored at home. Which explains most of the high numbers."
Even when I anticipate the reply and provide the explanation in advance, people still choose to skip over the parts that would contradict what they want to say! I said this in my own post. I ALSO pointed out that the Swiss people voted down by popular referendum a proposal to change this and store guns centrally. They CHOSE the situation where they all have guns in their home. By Dabb's reasoning, that makes them all psychopaths in training. Or at least the majority of the populace that voted in favour of this situation. I also pointed out that there are many nations in the world that have far higher rates of gun ownership than the UK. Is Dabbs arguing that the UK has some magically far lower rate of "psychopaths" (for whatever they mean by that) than all these other countries? Your brain has gone "Switzerland + Guns = Post about military" without actually bothering to read the rest of my post or that I covered that.
Also, Switzerland is by nearly any standard, not a country with a lot of violence as you acknowledge. So how does the fact that some of it is gun violence factor into the argument that guns mean psychopaths? Is the argument that there are lots of "psychopaths in training" yet somehow they have a low incidence of violent crime? Again, the Swiss people CHOSE to keep guns in their home by popular vote. Just like this guy in America chose to keep a gun in their home. So Dabbs is calling the majority of Swiss people "psychopaths in training". And that doesn't hold up. Nor does it hold up for lots of other countries with much higher gun ownership ratios.
>>"It is a matter of personal opinion, of course, but I feel that a family man with a shotgun in the house is, by definition, a psychopath in training."
Opinion / Shminion. You're a journalist and have a duty to make sure your opinions are informed. How would you like it if a popular news site made you sound like a dumb, hick bigot based on the author's personal prejudice?
Switzerland has one of the highest gun-ownership ratios in the world. Is it a nation filled with psychopaths? And don't pass it off as being just about military service - there was a proposal that guns should be stored in central armouries and it was rejected by popular referendum. I.e. the Swiss people as a whole actively voted that they all be allowed to keep their guns in their home. And it's not just Switzerland. Very many countries have a much higher proportion of gun ownership than the UK, voluntarily owned. Are you saying that psychopathy occurs much more frequently in other countries than runs in good English blood?
Different cultures perceive the meaning of things differently. Someone who grew up in a big city might stand 50cm away from someone and think it a good conversational distance. Someone who grew up in the countryside might find a person doing so to be aggressive and invading their personal space. You find someone owning a gun abnormal and look for explanations as to why they'd do something like that. In many other cultures, it doesn't signify anything. And not just America, not by a long shot. In much of the world owning a gun is common. 'Ah,' you might say. 'but these areas of the world violence is quite common and its sensible to want to defend yourself and your family'. To which I say "Hello - USA, anyone?"
What is a psychopath ? Someone who doesn't grasp consequences, someone who lacks empathy for others or social conscience? That better describes the drone pilot who hassled their neighbours and then lied about the facts; was aggressive when caught and later tried to whip up support with, as it happens, stereotypes about the guy who shot their drone.
Perhaps I'm simply too far at the opposite end to a psychopath and over-burdened with empathy, but I can't help feeling that I would be pretty upset to see myself maligned by some journalist who had never met me and plainly had just invented their own caricature to suit. I mean you admit outright that you have an a priori view on Their Type. Come to think of it, this is what you did last week with your piece about how a hacker actually wears Iron Maiden t-shirts and smells of urine. Have you not noticed that your stereotypes are rankling with people? I'm sorry if this and my last post come across as aggressive or mean. I know you put work into these articles and honestly, I usually enjoy what you write. It's just this mean stereotype humour I don't get.
>>"Also, more extensive accounts indicate that the drone had hovered over the same yard six times during the preceding year and that a sixteen-year-old woman was sunbathing in the yard. So, unless there is some remarkably interesting arhcitecture, why was Boggsie running his drone there repeatedly? The shooter says that the drone was harassing the yard. Maybe it was."
The drone owner then came round with three mates and were apparently pushy / aggressive enough that the guy felt they were being threatening to him causing him to warn them off his property. Honestly, from all the interviews and coverage I have read on this, the guy who shot has seemed reasonable and calm and the drone owner an anti-social and entitled git.
Except the man who shot down the drone sounds nothing like that. He's been pretty reasonable in everything we've seen of him so far. It's the drone owner who has been ranting (with gems like 'if you let him shoot down my drone what's to stop him shooting down a helicopter') and claiming that he was flying it at 200' when a shotgun has a range of around 90' if you're lucky. And the man had time to watch it hover, go inside, get his shotgun come back out, aim and shoot it, all whilst it was still over his garden. So it's hard to make the case that it wasn't intruding.
Disappointing rambling from Alistair who seems to prefer his stereotypes and expectations to reality. I usually enjoy these articles.
Haven't they already saved enough money by replacing most of the police with barely trained and half-the-price Police Community Support "officers"? They have to start using Skype now, as well?
It's not that I am necessarily against doing things by video chat or over the phone. It's that I believe once a cheaper method is an option it will inevitably be pushed as the expectation a lá "if you want to speak to a human please work your way slowly through our lengthy number pressing sequence" was.
I don't think that would be a good idea. I mean if you know the TalkTalk manager's date of birth, you probably know their password and PIN, too.
This might be cynical but who checks that these figures are correct? And would we hear about it if they weren't?
For all that I know (and this is probably right), these figures are some sleep-deprived IT person pooring through logs and saying "well if this, then probably that..." Which is fine, but is there some sort of proper investigation that takes place that would inform us if said IT person were wrong? Or TalkTalk had slanted the truth?
>>"You chose the "cheap as chips" ISP, so it's YOUR fault if your data gets stolen"
Wait, TalkTalk are cheap? Are you sure about that? They're the same or more as others, when I looked.
All ISPs have raced each other to the bottom as far as I can see. I have looked but I don't know any 'premium' (for want of a better term) ISPs. Do you?
>>Anybody here not left TalkTalk yet?
I have a thread in the forum section asking for recommendations of ISPs people should move to. I'm not sure if the lack of replies is due to the low activity level in the forums or, perhaps more likely, that there are no decent ISPs. I'll confess that whilst I would recommend people away from TalkTalk, there are very few ISPs I would recommend people toward. It would be good to find otherwise, though.
Windows 10 - the Foie Gras of operating systems.
Great. Marshmallows are on me! :)
Actually I'm going to say today is a day to be nice to MEPs. At least the ones who voted in favour of granting protection. Good for them! I'm trying to find a list so I can see how mine voted.
>>"Now go open your mind and shut your mouth"
This from the person arguing FOR the government limiting access to other viewpoints and information from independent sources! This is becoming hysterical. Doublethink is alive and well.
>>"You will also notice that we're always at war."
I wonder if in Boltar's mind they are pronouncing their wisdom to a mob of naïve yoofs whose heads have been filled with misguided righteous idealism? I think most of us here concerned about things like this are actually the older, cynical ones who have been around long enough to see how successive governments misuse such powers time and again. We're not "kiddies" (not that there's anything wrong with that). We're people who have watched the endless churn of Talibans and IS's and Husseins go from hero to villain (and occasionally back again) and have actually read our history. We'd actually like to be able to understand the enemy of the day, not just listen to the official version. Something hard to do when the government tries to turn every journalist into an informant.
>>"You see the utterance "innit" tacked onto just about everything certain people say. That doesn't make it right."
Actually, I haven't heard anyone say "innit" for years and even then it was used ironically. And what is inherently wrong about "innit" if someone does say it? It's just a mode of emphasis.
>>""They" might have come into common parlance, but the OP claimed it was the "standard non gender pronoun". Which it isn't."
And you wrote that "he" was the standard. But it isn't. Both "he" and "they" are in common usage. I use it when I'm referring to a real but unknown gender. For hypotheticals I tend to mix up he or she and just keep it consistent within the context of the example.
>>"It isn't. "He" is the non-gender-specific pronoun in English."
"They" has gained common usage as a non-gender specific pronoun these days. You see it in place of "he" quite often.
>>Feel free to provide a list of well known female hackers.
Off the top of my head, you might want to look up "St. Jude" aka Jude Milhon who was one of the original "hackers" and was unrepentant and highly vocal up until her death that hacking was a good thing because it improved software security. Susan Headley was one of the pioneers of Social Engineering approach to hacking and part of the Cyberpunks group which if you know your hacking history was a significant part of early hacking movements. Joanna Rutkowska if you're willing to accept White Hats (which you should). Kristina Svechinskaya is another that achieved a fair bit of notoriety. Gigabyte is female.
Anyway, I'm sure I could find more if I looked but that's who I can think of right now. You really picked the wrong person to argue with about this as being both a feminist and a software engineer who's been around for a long time, you're actually going to get answers to your questions - which I'm sensing you weren't expecting. For what it's worth, when you wrote "hacker" I took that to mean in the original sense but it's plain from the rest that you're just using the modern meaning of someone who gets access to IT systems they shouldn't so that's what I gave you. But really it's a silly question as successful hackers are often anonymous. Maxim could be female - how would you know? Impact Team could be. Wank Worm could be. Okay, Wank Worm is probably male, I'll give you that.
Anyway, why you seized on hackers as your "proof" of male dominance I don't know. There are plenty of highly skilled female engineers who aren't hackers. I don't know why they don't count for you. But as you can see - yes there are female hackers and some pretty well-known ones as well. So I can assume you'll backtrack and admit that you're wrong now? Yes? :)
>>If you can't handle that then find another occupation.
I can handle people being rude just fine. The question is why you can't handle other people being polite.
>>"It's insulting to women, actually, they're not stupid, and can, of course, tell that what the idiot is doing."
Actually, I don't find it insulting at all.