195 posts • joined Saturday 23rd August 2008 10:33 GMT
Why not run your own power station, too?
We could all run our own SMTP server, like we could all grow our own food, make our own shoes and sew our own clothes. You need to make your way into the 18th century. (Look on the back of a £20 note, assuming you don't do everything by barter).
There's an option. You can have compulsory standards for dangerous equipment or you can shout "No Big Government", so certifying authorities like UL are reduced to pleading with consumers to watch their demonstrations.
No-one will force you to provide an IPv6 service. As you imply, many applications won't use it for a very long time. But if your prediction doesn't come true, there will soon be devices around the world which have only an IPv6 address and you won't get any traffic from them.
Why would you need separate IPv6 addresses?
A small part of the IPv6 space has been allocated to correspond to the entire IPv4 address space.
So, if you have a IPv4 address then you already have a corresponding range of IPv6 addresses. E.g. see http://www.twibble.org/Articles/IPv6/6to4.
Of course, if the IPv4 addresses are static, then the IPv6 addresses are static, too.
"BT and Phorm had received considerable legal advice...and were advised it was unlikely to be contrary to..."
There seems to be some confusion here. Lawyers are paid to say that black is white (and, if paid even more, to argue this before a judge).
What matters is the decision of a court (and only that). If "legal advice" carries weight, we could all "get our mitigation in first" by paying for a legal opinion in case our crookery came to light.
"How difficult is it to capture a date of birth and send a relevant offer each year?"
I don't mind an infrequent e-mail from a supplier, to remind me that they exist and to tell me what they're up to.
Intruding on my private life is another matter. My birthday concerns my family, not colleagues or acquaintances. It sure as hell doesn't concern suppliers.
Perhaps these "marketers" send out their private greetings in the same way: "Happy Birthday. Many Happy Returns. Do not reply to this message as the sending address is not monitored. Click this link to update personal details or if the addressee has died". Do these idiots really believe that people are thrilled to get birthday greetings that they know are from a machine?
Hard evidence, anyone?
'Canonical is involved in a project to ship millions of PCs pre-installed with Ubuntu out to rural communities....“Who knows what the people who get these machines will do with them,” George says'.
Well, instead of asking "Who knows", get back to us in ten years and let us know. Better still, since Linux has been around for twice that long, please point out the persuasive examples which show clearly the fatal error of depending on "proprietary" software. Instead what we hear is mere speculation.
It seems more likely that proprietary software does well in the UK because we can afford it, while the "Chinese rural communities" cannot. Using "open source" software might not put them greatly at a disadvantage, but neither will it turn them from necessity into soaring eagles of computer technology, any more than the quirks of my car will push me to redesign it and hence forge a new automobile industry to rival Honda, Mercedes and the rest.
On this PC I use the latest version of Open Office, but it is, frankly, inferior to Microsoft's Office 2003 which I use on another. As someone who has done little but work in software for 30 years, am I tempted to take out the Open Office gearbox and change it to suit my needs? I am not. Microsoft Office and Open Office are just tools I use on the way to somewhere else. They both have faults, but I am no more tempted to fix one than the other, simply because I have access to its design information.
"Apple is maintaining its traditional silence on the matter..."
I wouldn't want to judge without the full information, so it would be interesting to know what enquiries have been made and with how much enthusiasm.
If Apple's official position is indeed persistently to say nothing on matters which have given rise to legitimate customer enquiries, it's difficult (whatever the size of the company) to regard them as more than "cowboys".
I don't have any Apple products. Speaking to those who have, they appear to be genuinely impressed by their features, much less by the reliability and customer service. Maybe this can work for disposable toys or for equipment I can maintain myself, but not for a car or other complex equipment on which my livelihood depends.
Is there an English version of this post?
"...Google...could never have started...in Britain"
Maybe you could say the same of Al Capone. His was another business based on the work of others unable to enforce their rights.
Not a problem
'BT's "superfast" broadbrand programme director, told El Reg that the company was still waiting for clearance from local authorities in Haringey to let the company install 18 of its cabinets'
Clearly, the local residents don't want it. Why is this a problem when there is demand elsewhere and we are invited to believe that the current limitation is how fast that demand can be met?
Customs and Revenue / Revenue and Customs
HM Revenue and Customs won't "inspect every single imported item" any more than they inspect every purchase of a bar of chocolate from your corner shop. Nor do HMR&C "calculate the value and then charge VAT". VAT is administered by those who must charge it and by those who pay it but can reclaim it (as part of a legitimate business activity).
There is a registration and monitoring scheme for VAT, just as for PAYE. HMR&C investigate here and there to ensure compliance and imposes discouraging penalties where appropriate. If you try serious circumvention, you may be discovered and suffer criminal penalties.
More like suboptimal
"Videoconferencing" more than three people is inefficient and unpleasant, because the participants are distracted constantly by figuring out who is speaking and when they can get a word in without talking over everyone else.
Maybe they help introduce people to each other, but you can do that with one-to-one video (or just a photo). The real work is done in writing and in one-to-one conversations.
Webcasts (like videoconferencing) are largely a gimmick. Why not just collect a few questions and answer them in a short written article? That way, both questions and answers are likely to be better considered, more succintly expressed and quicker to take in (skipping those in which we have little interest). Don't expect any serious "interaction" because the experience is "real-time".
Friends, Romans, Countrymen!
They'll never find me out.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault.
"The question is, which is to be master - that's all"
"When _I_ use a word", Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"
"Not a good example" @ James Huze 1
You're confused. If banking isn't "free" then Google isn't "free", either.
You could as easily have written "Google have your e-mails and they make money from them (more than its costs them to provide the service), because they examine those e-mails as part of targeted advertising, which they sell (for real money). Maybe it's not much, but multiply it by the number of customers enjoying "free" service and you have the money to pay for the computer network".
We all know the business model: explaining it doesn't get you anywhere. It's still a question of providing service in exchange for some advantage, be that your money or your attention to their adverts. The question is whether or not Google provide a service to which you would trust valuable information.
You can search T&Cs all day: that won't answer the question. Would you be happier if Google's terms said "We may lose all your data but you can always sue us"? The point is that "cloud" facilities are presented as secure, but the experience so far is that data can go missing for days (or forever) because the technology is immature or poorly-managed. In comparison, it's very cheap to backup your own data. You know how long it would take to recover a lost item and you don't rely on suing Google to get back to where you thought you were before you used their service.
Let's apply your logic (perhaps in more polite language) to banks.
"We lost some people's money, but it was only 0.08% of customers, just a hundred thousand or so. The service is free, what on earth are these idiots whingeing about...you get access to how many MILLIONS of cash machines....you want the earth for nothing, freeloaders!"
"This issue affects less than 0.08 per cent..."
Translation: you always get a few whiners.
I prefer to think "Hey, this is computers. What we can do with 0.08%, we can do in a few seconds with the other 99.92%!".
It's not about what belongs to whom. It's about putting together information (from whatever sources) to draw conclusions on matters proscribed by Data Protection laws.
Even if you visit most sites anonymously, it's very useful to Google if they see the same IP address (dynamic or not) a few seconds or minutes apart.on two or more different sites. It allows them to draw likely conclusions which will soon connect your buying habits, your e-mail address, your taste in pornography etc.
Of course, you'd hear arguments like "Well, we didn't know for absolute certain sure, your honour. it could have been someone re-using the same IP address 30s later" or "It could have been a proxy", But the information needn't be 100% accurate to gain enormous advantage from it (and to cause a great deal of trouble).
A couple of weeks ago, I searched idly for information on laser toner prices, because I knew i'd need a new cartridge in the next couple of months. My next visit to YouTube (not linked explicitly to a Google account) was accompanied by adverts for laser toner. Even at its most innocent, it's like being dogged at every turn by pestering salespeople. Go, Germany!
Perhaps you could write your suggested one-line version of this story for us. it will, presumably, be written for those of you who are familiar with all aspects of IT.
I'm impressed by your implied breadth of knowledge, because after more than 30 years in the field, I find that I know only a small portion of it.
I run a few DNS servers (one with BIND) and I'm familiar with the subject of this article, but I'm not offended by the writer's proper attempts to make it clear to those for whom DNS is only a vague notion. If only all the articles here were written so well, the site would be much improved.
Why not apply to "The Register" for a job as journalist. We'll be interested, if not amused, to see how far you get.
"...users could still reach websites by using the IP address..."
They'd usually need to do this by intercepting the DNS query (e.g. by amending the HOSTS file).
If you simply type the server's IP address into a browser, the server can't know which of its sites you want (unless it hosts only one). (See HTTP 1.1 and host headers).
Some write constantly here about "virtualisation". The notion of one site per server must surely give them the vapours.
It's the same in IT
The prescience of Stanley et al., convinced that "we know our market", was matched in the 90s by cellphone service providers who believed inter-network SMS was more trouble than it was worth.
Long live those like Hickman, with the confidence to recognise an "expert" in a rut.
As a user...
Since the teachers are fighting in the staff room, I'll just choose the one with nicer colours that doesn't keep crashing.
"Most organisations are virtualising the desktop"
I think you were right the first time: no, they're not.
Most organisations have a few PCs and don't "virtualise" anything. What's more, that's exactly right for them.
The author omits any figures to justify "most organisations" and (I would suggest) doesn't have any. It recalls Kelvin's remark: "...when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot...your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science...".
Your place or mine?
Who knows, AC. Maybe we're made for each other...
"We also protect our networks with...sophisticated security approaches"
Translation: we left the front door open, but you should see the expensive locks we had on it.
"Sophisticated security" usually means "so complex, even we can't be sure it works".
I am Bing. I reflect your every expectation. My purpose is never to surprise.
Why would I want a search engine that shows me only the type of stuff I've seen already?
It's like those personal ads seeking "a like-minded person". What would you learn from someone who's "like-minded"?
With such search engines, perhaps the internet really will create a world of contented, unambitious zombies, never desiring a world beyond that which they know.
"Michala Wardell, Chair, BSA UK Committee, said the case showed that using unlicensed software was a false economy".
It's not clear that the case demonstrates this. Most who people who use "unlicensed" software get away with it, so the question of whether or not it's "economical" to do so rests on the advantage of not paying against the possible cost of getting caught.
Wardell's statement is little more than an advertisement for her organisation.
"made up number"
Knowingly to provide false information to the court would be a serious criminal offence. Perhaps you forget that BT doesn't just collect cash from the phone boxes and conclude its recent fortunes from the weight of the bags. It has a billing system which indicates how much is expected to be there.
Ask me if I care
We read here of "virtualisation" every few days.
Given its minor position, eclipsed by numerous other branches of IT, many more relevant and almost all more interesting, you have to ask why.
Gravity is important, too, but I don't benefit from reading about it several times a week.
Error 509 - bad hair day
It's a long time since I used their online banking, but I remember that error messages seemed only remotely connected to the actual fault.
The generaly principle seemed to be "blame the user by listing half a dozen things they can get wrong, completely unrelated to what actually happened".
'...a logging...environment...that flagged keywords such as “knockers”'
With drought, global economic meltdown, devastating floods and now the worst cyclone for 30 years, it's interesting that civil servants still spend Australians' money on stuff like this.
"But they're white..."
Mention "black coffee" (or anything remotely connected to race) at the BBC and eyes will dart here and there in fear. If the breach should become public, copious and abject apologies must follow, as will sackcloth and ashes (if the offender isn't just asked to resign). But the rest of us, apparently, are fair game.
Go for it, Iris de la Torre!
There are (since you don't seem to be aware of it), several versions of Windows.
The server versions often don't support widely-used programs.
And before you complain that people shouldn't be running a browser on a server, consider that there are reasons to run Windows Server other than as a server. You just haven't met them.
It's worth a try
"Readers should note...that dimensional portals...would be so tiny and exist for such ultra-brief instants of time...that they would be unsuitable ..."
Well, it's a long shot, but could be the only way to divest ourselves of Terry Wogan.
It's not enough to have modern comms
My [big name Japanese] car dealer wrote in advance of the annual service/MOT and included their e-mail address.
So, I e-mailed, giving the relevant range of dates when an MOT would be appropriate. But they don't actually use e-mail, so they replied by telephone and we arranged an appointment that way, including collecting the car from my house, as I didn't need a courtesy car.
A couple of weeks later, they rang again to arrange the appointment. After listening to the spiel, I pointed out that we already had an appointment and that I was expecting them to collect the car from my house on the agreed date. [Shuffling of paper]. "Right", said the girl, 30th June and we'll provide a courtesy car. "No!", I said. I don't want a courtesy car. "OK", she said. "I'll book it in and we'll provide a courtesy car. "NO!", I said. I don't want a courtesy car. You're going to collect the car from here.
I didn't use them again. I didn't feel confident that they would turn up to collect it or, if I took it there myself, that they would have any idea who I was, despite the appointment.
They continued to write, but without an e-mail address, which sums up their fitness for the 21st century (or maybe even the 20th). However, they did ask for my e-mail address (presumably so they could send me adverts like those they sent to my mobile phone).
That dealer sold out recently (not forgetting to pass on my telephone number, so I still receive pestering texts). Let's hope the recession sees off more of these unfit businesses which survived only because they had an easy market. Let's see more businesses like the one described in the article.
The cell may be legal but...
Can a standard handset reduce its power enough not to interfere with the "standard" local cells?
Anyone for Kafka?
"...people cannot be expected to adhere to a law they do not understand"
Surely it's even simpler than that. We cannot be expected to adhere to a law which we are not allowed to know until we arrive in court.
It's just a tradition
I already heat my home by burning the methane derived from my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather, god bless his diatomic skeleton.
"...the government would consult with other bodies on their inclusion..."
As someone said, when you're planning to drain a swamp, you don't consult the frogs.
"The reason this information is provided...
...is to provide value for money to London taxpayers...
TfL appears to forget that about half its income is derived from dipping into the pockets of all taxpayers (not just those in London).
Perhaps the spokesperson could have said "...to provide value for money for taxpayers, including those who pay for TfL but can't use it, because it provides services only in the south east".
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report